NoticeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 13, 2021FILED August 13, 2021 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORMrk of The Court COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Superior Court of CA APPELLATE DIVISION County of Santa Clara 21AP002743 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. By: raragon CALIFORNIA, Env# 7062682 Petitioner, 21AP002743 V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent, JEANALYN ARTAJOS, Real Party in Interest. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case N0. C2005709 The Honorable Jessica Delgado, Judge PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OR PROHIBITION EXHIBITS A-I(36W JEFFREY F. ROSEN, SBN 163589 District Attorney SHERYL LEUNG, SBN 238229 Deputy District Attorney County of Santa Clara County Government Center West Wing, ’70 W. Hedding Street San Jose, California 951 10 Telephone: (408) 299-7400 Direct: (650) 324-6411 Email: sleung@da0.sccg0v.0rg Attorneys for the People/Petitioner EXHIBIT A 38 HI I SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COLTNTY OF SANTA CLARA HALL OF JUSTICE MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DA NO: 200305649 CEN 2OOO759A EFWI9S JAA SCIT 04/28/2020 Fited BLOOD 0.104 c2005709 COUNT 1 By: EApolinar on or about February 28,2020, in the county of Santa C?aru,State of california, the crime of DRIVING LTNDER THE INFLUENCE oF ALCOHoL, in violation of vEHICLE CODE sECTION 23152(a), a Misdemeanor' was committed by JEANALYN ANDREA ARTAJOS who did drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Pursuant to Vehicle Code section23593(a): "You are hereby advised that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. If you continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and, as a result of that driving, someone is killed, you can be charged with murder." COUNT 2 on or about February 28,2020, in the county of Santa clara, State of california, the crime of DRIVING WITH A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF 0.08 OR MORE, in violation of VEHICLE CODE SECTION 23152(b), a Misdemeanor, was committed by JEANALyN ANDREA ARTAJSS who did drive a vehicle while having 0'08 percent and more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. April 13, 2020 Clerk of the Court Superior Court of CA County of Santa Clara THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, vs. JEANALYN ANDREA ARTAJOS (t2t 02/ rg88), 3109 MABURY RD SAN JOSE CA 95127 Defendant(s). Pursuant to Vehicle Code section23593(a): "You are hereby advised that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. If you continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and, as a result of that driving, someone is killed, you can be charged with murder." DISCOVERY REQUEST Pursuant to Penal Code sections 1054 through 1054.7,the people request that, within l5 days, the defendant and/or hislher attorney disclose: (A) The names and addresses of persons, other than the defendant' he/she intends to call as witnesses at trial, together with any relevant written or recorded statements of those persons, or reports of the statements of those persons, including any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the case, and including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial; (B) Any real evidence which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial. This request is a continuing request, to cover not only all such material currently in existence, but all material which comes into existence to the conclusion of this case. Further, attached and incorporated by reference are official reports and documents of a law enforcement agency which the complainant believes establish probable cause for the pretrial restraint of defendant JEANALYN ANDREA ARTAJOs, for the above-listed crimes. Cornplainant therefore requests that the defendant(s) be dealt with accordilg to law. I certify under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 11,2020, in SANTA CLARA county, california. L Colon ( HOLDEN 22291) 00340 $a8) 467-s400 K823773 CHP FEIN/ D367 I MISDEMEANOR/ JL DocuSagned by: (,olr c01294F47U942F 018517 EXHIBIT B 39 HI I 1 HA|.J-OFflrSnCE 190w" ltEDDItE SANJOSE,CA9S1TO PEopLEVs. ARTATOS,JEAI,IALYD.IANDREA DAr0Str3/2@0 0.tl0Al,l pgp1. 5t1mng88 CA D7$r4a8,,t- coY Ht t\i @;Salol.CHH EFWIS FcLERK ARRAIctfirlB{T:COHpt-AINT HeanrGHPSHT&t4 - zv)gt - FtolJEN JUDGE REPORTEFYER DEF. ATTY. CHARGES \q;o$ Gr\,to Atty Present Nerf,T$tl mA APO CASE NO, CEN tlhnrrlArt .ffi7m fin07590 TW lIdDr wbra@n 3'09 MAzuRY RD SANJOSECA, 85127 FlOl'|. BRCI,YN, StlELYl{A V EI..ECIROT{IC, RBCORDI}IG D.D.A 001 VCUllS2(a) ll , 02 l,3b VS ? 11 .10 AD / PD/ IDO lSpeclal Appiceneral E swom D Bail Apply ! Ealance Exonerated I Bail Exonerated E Forfeited Bond# I Reassumption Fited E Forfeiture SuilriOu E g.fl R"in tr $-- Costs Within 30 Days to Court SORP/OR ERevoked EReinstated E BW Ordered S_ fJ Stayed ! To tssue D No Cite Release/SCIT I No Request ! Cash Only E BW Set Aside E Recaned E Fited El Remain Out EArr'o /ea, @ArrWav El Amend Comptaint g'ruc tr Entered bycRT I lreeru leov n Denies priors /Allogalions/ Enhancements /Refusat NEXT fl Defendant Present dNot Present tr _Retisved tr Arr tr Plea O tDC PPTC D prob/Senr E eaiu oR/ soRP EI VOP D Further ryIw trTNW ETW/WD ETli/Sentence EReterred:4---- - U LDM: Ll LDT: _ E Defendant ordered to Appear E nef I Rppt PD / AD / tDO E Con Dect E ROm rur ! appearance is waived I if proof is ln fite I Hrg on Mln PC1oso/ts38lSDT/pitchess D cranted D Denied [f submitted E ottcat E stip to comm E Readiness E Jury E CT ! prop 36 REview Appt'd I crim Proc Susp E Doubt Decl purs pc1368 E Cerlified lo General Jurisdiction O Proorot [] MDA / COM Amended (MltNF) count to DCountAmendedloE(M/lNF)vC12500(a),vC23103(a)EPursvczstos.jooffi PLEA Conditlons E lnctr.rdes VOP D euo to cal E DismissaU stritrng/ivDA;i; '-- L' ,.qq K) uar E vacate pending date E eov Max pen r prou I tmmig / Appeat u nes its ;tSJ't" " t*' wav Righl to E counsel E coud / Jury Trial EI subpoena / confront / Examine wiln€sses E s€lf-incrimination D wriflen waiver lited E plea I Absentia filed El coP E GUILTY EI NoLo CONTENDERE lo charges & admits enhancemenb,t afiegatiors /priors E Arbucftte E Faclual Basis found E Findings statedfl Prop 36/PDP Granted / Unamendable / Refused / Rein / Term Fee $- E lpo rL[ Rpt/w"io"" Relenal E cR1lO lssued E BoF1o2zcR2lo Filed E llffilifl[,JlT,admisslon E sent Suspende-d- HNES,FEES: ! Repori ro DrAc ro set up pymr pran w/in 30 days ! ot rerease Pay to: E DTAC E CourU Today I Audit # _PROBATION E lmposition of sentence suspended for probation period COUilf__$_ + pA $_ E COURT D TORUru PROBATION GMNTED FOR - DAYS I MOS / YrS COUNT-S- + PA $- EMAT S -- E Report to APO withln _ Days I Terminated E Upon Retease AIOS / Cpp S_ + pA S_ SORp SI Perform - Hrs Volunleer Work as direcled APO / SAP / CAP E in lieu of lins/Jait t-AB $_ + pA $_I May do 'n county DRF / RF $ Addl RF S- susp pc1202.44l45E Not drive wlo valld DL & tns fl Adv VC23600 E HTO E Re-refer AEF S_ Originat Fine S_ D MoP E FoP E rz nrs El 3 mos E I mos Enroll within -days sEcA $- crs pc2soo.s s_E DLSusp/Resl/d/Rvk'd lor-E llDNot/ordered/Rmv'd rerm-yrs lcMF $-TorAr- DuE s-E No conlacl with victim or family / co-defendants unless appr by ApO ! Mctinr present lClN S_ paym€nls Gfanted / Modiried / pay wfin 90 daysE Po issued ' mod / lerm'd ExP - E No contacuPeaceful AR s- s---r Mo beginning _fl DSA nled o Not own/possess deadly weapons E Agenqr - SHELTER s- FINE srAyED _ E Submil Search / Tosting E Educlvoc Tmg/Empl EI No alcohol/ drugs or where sold Fine / Fees E oeemea satisfied E commuted E coltect CivillyE Substance Abuse. Psych, Thefl. Anger Mgmt, DV, Parenting, Minors in Possession pflNVEST S_ E p/SUp S /tvlo E waivedE PC296 (DNA) El pC1202.1 HIV Tesr / Education tr GJAF $129.75/S259.s0 S_ f] Addrl FEE waivedVOP: EWav EAn'd EAdmits/DentesViol Ecoud'rindsVOp/NoVop E srca,|CMF,tClN.CJAF,ptNVESt,psupFEESNoTcoND.oFpRoBProbRein/Mod/Term'd/Revoked/RemainsRevoked/Extto_ E Gen 3 Restit$ to_ 0 original rerms & conditions Excepl as Amended herein E obey All La!.6 E Restit Admin ree, ttre .t5% of lotat E Restit Admtn Fee walvedE Co-terminous with - D No Further penatties / Revieu/s Other: JAIUPRISON Count M E Soe Attacht Pg ! Dress out for Triat Esholrer EHalrcul Violation CTS=_ACT+_ EpC4019 Dy, = Total Tolal T E StraightTirns E WWP PC120g Fees D Waived E Court Rec E Sent Deemed Served E MaydoWWPthrouqh SAp E in - AII / Except E EM P/PSP/E RP/RCPA/VWPIIN cAM P/N P E Bal cJ susp E All but- Hrs/DayuMosA/rs D on cond comptete Ru.ic.ntir]i[]t n*lFrg*- fl Serve Consec MO/TU/WE/TI-|/FR/SA/SU E Pr+process AMiPM tr Stay/surrender to County Jail U No ERP County E Consec E Conc lo fIREMANDED.BAlLs-E]REMAtNASSETENoBAlLDCoMMlTTEDDRELEASEDtrIonDsonFffi fI AS CONo oF SORP fl BAIL INCREASE / REDUcE E To eRGM AS REc By JAc-Doc To ARRANGE TRANSpSRT UpoN AVATL BED D STATUS Remains AM/PM or Sooner ORIGINAL. FILE. GREEN - DOC, SUJE - 6 , i' I .l 'r t i',lt(iii:l i/: :;i$.;i(i:.'r >i'r-'r.':t. L. .1. i.J |,_! i'.'. - -'- i-1, I.T, ,?... \ 1 . I ,'r.-.'*) ,ir.Ji;j :r,r.-.r:...i-U .. .'it-, !r- . ',r', '. t , i U _1,._: , irortE.ro pA6Darroufn. . - Ilo,'.gprurg,.lig,z.g r,ourseil w,h_rhg .goadjrion;;I i"r,. ryi;.,llJ, 'r'J*,o,",,on of any oftheterms may renzei you liabttio tniidtloilini p"n"tii"". Hor..ever, if vou failhfuflvpedorm-your dulies during_your probationary p-eiioo yo, ire eniiu;i; ih" ffiffiJ.hereinafter set forth. See Section 1 !03 of the cafifoinia punir drG. -rr ,-1 | -\.--- nths and or[;i-r*l'Jarr. ri^]1i:t1:rrr,riliJiirrrr,r;c'.rnti"sstr.r.4fi_?]J{(x,rp. ll.r,.}:{.i}.eili;ai$iurlal}*rr.;ara''.1u!L:l$:._r1:,q"erjJ]4r.er:n:-i1ri1,q--{!rrricr-a(LUO*:.On*rrrfi&:i.3}t,fus*lJiin. I_i,2{i)ll: *ill-Tffit lei'l$g$*i:'j1.!:ral:r1e's-:nc.rr.uudsreiutsrdtr$.tlr$:l,lo:!-5.li**Ll*:l]a:,*.d-. far *r. -7- r.olr{)N }.:{}R RErr:,RAr. ,r,jlilii;li; 'iH}*',,],}ii,1J*Llii.,r.,r, pr:N:\r {.{)Dr,{ r*f r {,}-i I : 4 5 6 7 I l0 II l: I3 l4 l{ ts l7 I8 I} a(\ 21 :: :s 26 a? )(1 I{eqr.r*sl"dgg> l;'rs o{".[an. I3" 30:1]. {:! cnpy o{'rtis "'liero l.e{ter,.l}on: tlre cDAA is attache*rra cout't hsld that the statutory pr*hihitiol on D{ }l rliver"si.rn c*ntrol116 *ver anoth*r t]iversion statute" tireir anulysis supports illjI ciiv*rsion under th* diver:sicln lar.r ar issue ltere' In '/[1,r;rc" the ctiul*f helci that the Legislatur:e""mani&sted'. its intent t* e"xcllrde DUls frorr mental healti: diversiotr only hecause it enacted an cxprers exceptiun tei cnl. veh. c. $ 2j$40 in *ur nrilitar;" diversion 161v {cal' I}en. c. $ 100i.80i u,ith*Lrt en*uring an1, similar exeeptio* f 3Aao .$tr t ' SR fi$ XX 3* f# * ,-oi c! 3:g :85 i.E i{!,i x l5E.?< i&S ; i $ ot !>,i _qr .d: sl 1 h)4ql ! rl i ? -il al? n r!i crl CJ r:l :l ".,1 EI *t dt {rq fii {i 5; !i 3i s d; € s ),;f;-t ;.u${ l aE t)CSe. ;.4 "s:o-* '86':lEx$ &:s {H6s>&&es $sE wt3 #i &€d .*,tf iii Egr hl ; fl s@, ::lli s u ? fr & & '* s. c if T &5 r 5 ?l el*td 4il st il @6 T ::r,!ll': i:;::], li:r'1 liiL l,;::;=ll. Iti:,., tr; :1;'l: ,.*r,w. ::..:lM:: ::&:::.:::s :::KI:H fi ts l*r: e, Ei sl s^flxl cl*l .al di H$et YJ .61 el il €l*eldalstst fiHElcllj$i ;i ,El ;1 gl ,*l 8i @&s*s& i-til cal: efl-,* e H*lsl .E € EqTI E E !*i3i+fr9:E I EaS&c s** t,*t EXIIIBIT BH Screenshot_20201 020-093444.png https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwKjBGrjjZMvMkwkzJJnVgGgbjw?projector= 1 ho _20201 093 png10/20/2020 If $1 11 i 11 Q . 5' } o nah! A “ ~ Wang % mgr l‘mtrh nf Erusltts II ‘ I nu 1hr nomination hf 1hr farting has mnftrrrb upon nhrruwulu ‘ .wgfifimuww Ecamzhgn (Atxbrea (Artagns Hg: brgm‘ nf gatfielor of firicnrc in flxxsimss fisgchnlngg hill! all {hr rights anb priliilrgrs thtrcm pertaining. [ifs biplma i: giant It Wu M, Wifnmia this fiftmdh hag a! Switch“ ElnaWm lmhScum https:/Imail.goog|e.comlmailIu/0/#inboxlFMfchijBGrijMvMkwszJanngjw?projeclor=1 1/1 EXHIBIT C - HI I Notice of Completion . certificate (DL101) Participant lnformation " Driver License Number * Name " Birth Date * Street Address * City * State or Province * Zip Code Phone Number Completion lnformation Education Only Componen(23140) First Offender Program Length Multiple Offender Program Length * Date of Original Enrollment "*':;:""#T:: Court Code Docket Nurnber Program lnformation Program Narre ADP License Nurnber D75742A4 ARTAJOS, JEANALYN ANDREA LZl1ztL988 3].09 MABURY RD SAN JOSE 95L27 (408) 206-0479 03M 04107t2020 081271202A 0a28/2020 43414 DMV : 4300801120 National Traffic Safety lnstiturte Address : 275 North 4th Street, 2nd Floof City: San Jose state : cA Postal code: 951125559 Phone Numb€r : (408) 297-8566 Authorked Repres€ntative : rstarkl@ntsi.com Unique lD#: zliX)0ffi 1121X)8282020104140RSTARK1@NTSI.COMD7574284DLLO1 This Notice of Completion Certilicate is a facsimite of eleclronically transmitted information. Any copy printed for court, participant, or record keeping is not valid for DMV purposes. EXHIBIT DHI I October 23,2020 To Whom lt May Concern: I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with Jeanalyn Artajos for the past 4 plus years during her time with Enterprise Holdings. Over that time period Jeanalyn and I have developed both a business relationship along with a personal friendship. ln that time period I have personally witnessed Jeanalyn' s self-drive and self-motivation in action. Jeana started with us as a receptionist, but through her hard work, sacrifice, dedication, and commitment, she was able to complete our lnternship program all while carrying another job and going to school. Jeanalyn was quickly accepted to our Management Training program where she became a leader who was given great responsibility. After completing the program Jeana was able to work her way to running her own business as a Branch Rental Manager. These accomplishments not only show her professional drive but are a true testament to the person that Jeanalyn is, and the character she possesses. Jeanalyn has worked hard and fought for every opportunity she has been given and has shown the ability to make great decisions to put herself on a path of success. As a Branch Rental Manager Jeanalyn ran her business with the utmost integrity, honesty, and reliability. She oversaw all financial, personnel, leadership, and asset rnanagernent aspects of her business on a day to day basis. Jeanalyn was given this responsibility due to her performance metrics, but even more so because she showed great character throughout her career with us. Jeanalyn is a great person with big heart. She is the type of person, that will not make the same mistake twice. She has shown that she is very coachable and has the ability to learn from her mistakes. Most importantly Jeana is someone who will use her own experience to educate and mentor others so that they don't make the same mistakes. I am confident that Jeanalyn will take this negative experience and use it to shape her own future decisions as well as the decisions of those around her. Paul Aguilar Jr Area Rental Manager- Central Coast 667-340-7078 4i ffiY4TffiffiWmsffiffih{ffitffi*ru*ffi Diana Duong 424L Peralta Blvd Fremont, CA 94536 s10-395-3889 October 26,2O2O To Whom lt May Concern: Through Enterprise Rent-A-Car, I have known Jeanalyn Artajos for the past 5 years. I have been able to get to know her in a variety of capacities. I can attest to her fine qualities as a professional and individual. Having originally met Jeanalyn in the role of HR Coordinator on my very first day at Enterprise as an interviewee, Jeanalyn have demonstrated great maturity and welcoming to me to the company. From my very first time in her presence, she have displayed maturity as she was balancing being a student and working in a highly stressful and confidential role as our cornpany's HR Coordinator handling extremely classified and time sensitive information. Further down my career, I had the great pleasure of being one of Jeanalyn's mentors for her career once she transitioned to the role of Management Trainee. Through her Management Trainee days, I have seen great tenacity and unmatched work ethic from her. Despite being with the company for nearly 4 years at this point, she did not mind starting from the bottom of the trainee program and work herself through our program. She came in every day with the "get it done" mentality. She persevere through the long hours and rigorous expectations that we set forth for our Management Trainee prograrn. When she finally worked herself to Branch Manager, I was able to work alongside her as one of the fellow co-branch managers in the San Jose territory. Having known her for nearly 4 years at this point, I was extremely proud to see her accomplishments and her hard work paying off. Jeanalyn have demonstrated great leadership and responsibility managing her own team and stepping up to lead the San Jose territory as needed. It is with great confidence that I can attest and commend Jeanalyn Artajos for her maturity, tenacity, strong work ethic, leadership and responsible character. Please take my letter into consideration for her character. lf you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me and I will be gladly to elaborate. Sincerely, Diana Duong Branch Rental Manager - Enterprise Rent-A-Car Alyssa Avelino r4z3 Scollon Ct San Jose CA 95132 October 2St 2o2a Re: Jeanalyn Artajos DUI Case To the Honorable Judge, My Name is Alyssa Avelino, I have known Jeanalyn for 6 years. We met in college and went through an intensive Business Psychology program togetherfor z straight years. I spent countless hours and days with her. I am familiar with her intentions, thought processes, and demeanor. She is a responsible, motivated and eager to learn individual. I have seen her persevere and accomplish so much in these past 6 years. This incident was completely out of Jeanalyn's character as I have only known her as a responsible and respectful person. As humans we all make mistakes, but one thing I know of Jeanalyn is she will always try to learn from any situation and apply it to her everyday Iife. Always trying to make it better the next time around. lf you need someone to speak to her character, I can say she is selfless and is always looking out forthe other person. She is a compassionate, caring person who made a wrong decision to get behind the wheel. This was completely out of her character and I never thought she would put herself and others in harm's way. I know her on a personal level, so I know she was having a very tough time in her life. She was in a difficult relationship which I know caused her to make an emotional decision instead of a conscience one. Since the incident she has made better decisions to better herself, now has a support system in place and is learning from this mistake. The friend I know will not make a mistake twice. She has since removed the toxic people in her life that added to her lapse of judgement. As well as those who hinder her ability to act as the responsible adult that she has worked so hard to become. Jeanalyn, has expressed her remorse and is doing everything she can to continue to better herself and learn from this. She has also communicated to me the desire to address all personal issues and move forward from this incident- lf I didn't think she was capable of being a good person or influence I would not allow her to be a part of my life nor myfamily's lives. My parents, husband and children know she is a well-intentioned, kind and resilient soul' My hope is she continues to better her life and embraces new opportunities for growth and self-reflection' I do believe that she will not make this a habit and will not repeat her offense. I hope this letter from me will act as a positive and contributing factor when the court considers the matter. Sincerely, Alyssa Ar,,eIino Alyssa Avelino LO/7e/2020 Chris Gustavson 2130 Park Avenue Apt. 5 San Jose, CA 95126 To the Court of Sonta Clara County, Joseph McPeok: I have known Jeanalyn Artajos for the past 5 years through working with her at Enterprise rent-a-car. She has been nothing but a great colleague, co-worker and most of all, a wonderful family-friend. During this time, I have found Jeanalyn to be an honest and trust-worthy colleague. ln the time I have known her, she has been a great individual when it comes to honest and integrity. Working for Enterprise rent-a-car, Jeanalyn started as an entry-level and worked her way up to branch manager within a span of 5 years. Through trial and error, she was able to grow and mature earning every promotion thrown at her. Within this span, she was also able to mentor a lot of employees who were going through hardships and challenges. As her colleague, I saw in her the passion and work ethic that was different from everyone else I knew in the company. She was very focused, very driven, and mostly importantly very dedicated to her work. Jeanalyn later told me that she was charged of a DUI back in March of 2O2O. That night, before she was arrested and charged with a DUl, I was asleep in my bed. I had a missed phone call from her around 4am that morning. Did not realize it until the next morning when I woke up. Leading up to this event there were many things going on in Jeanalyn's personal life, most importantly which included her break-up with her now ex- girlfriend whom she was in a relationship with for 5 years. This was a difficult time for Jeanalyn, as she was seeking out support and advice from close friends and family, which included myself. It was an event that Jeanalyn will never forget. To this day, Jeanalyn keeps telling me that she regrets that decision. Over and over, she would tell me that she would go back in time to redo what she did wrong. Jeanalyn is a wonderful person in all aspects of life who is devoted to her family and friends. lt was only in that moment that she made a mistake that would ultimately change her life. Jeanalyn understands the consequences that she must live with and acknowledges her mistakes. From all my years knowing Jeanalyn, she is a sincere, honest and trustworthy individual who would do no harm to anyone. I ask ofyou that Jeanalyn does deserve a second chance in life and I hope you take this into consideration recognizing the power you wield regarding the future for Jeanalyn and make it a fair decision. Sincerely, Chris Gustavson Michael Artajos 6180 Jarvis Ave Suite C Newark, CA 94560 October 23,2020 RE: Character Reference for Jeanalyn Artajos To Whom It MaY Concern: I am writing on behalf of Jeanalyn Artajos and I have known her for 29 yeats. We grew up together urrd hur" worked together in various restaurants- In this time, she has proven to be a re ponsible character, a loviig family member, and a dedicated hard working individual' Jeinalyn's DUI offense was quite unexpected. When the news of the DUI came to m€, I was in the utmost shock as her personality demonstrates accountability, trustrvorthiness, and maturity. Jeanallm has confessed to me the serious lack ofjudgement ixhibited during this time and the utmost regret. She has also expressed greairepentance and conducted steps towards personal growth to address her core p"isonal issues. Knowing Jeanallm for all my life, I have be"n aware of some personal pains she was facing in her p"rrorrll life during this time. I strongly believe that this incident has allowed her time to reflect and readjust her life to eliminating those who possess negative behaviors anchoring down her self improvement. Since the inciden! Jeanalyn has made serious progressive decisions and steps towards a healthier and improved lifestyle, back to the Joanalyn my family has known and loved. Jeanalyn possesses very high standardsof career goals and has done nothing but give her all towards achieving those gojr. i"rurr" of her strong personality and desire for continued self-improvement, Jeanalyn has j-oined support groups, ,"uir"lf h"lp liierature, and has glown closer to her family members by talking to us and been more "*pr".rir" of her feelings to build a stronger support system' I have no doubt that Jeanalyn will become a wiser person from the mistake she has learned and will move forward to being a worthy figure in this community' Jeanlayn has shown an absolute change in lifestyle and a steadfast demeanor in moving past this mistake in a very constructive, healthy, and successful manner' It is my hope that this letter regarding Jeanaiyn Artajos and her DUI case will act as a positive contributing factor when the court considers this matter. Respectfully Yours, ll;chael Artajoc Michael Artajos Manager of Kiseki Sushi EXHIBIT Ew {.,At:i.{}aNIA ,}r5j'nit:',' ./{i It )trt\l Y,) A5s{:}{11h1 1{)t+ i1.,11)5 i{afon.ras Park llrive, Suite 57! Sacrilrnt'ul.u, []A 95S33 t116.4.43.2\j17 tvtv',v.cdirij.0rg O!'FICEhS President \,'ern Pirrson [1 l]orad* Couttty First Vice Presidenl Jef{ Reisig 1',tlr, /"r,ttntu Second Vice President t tm war'0 Tulsrc lioun4v Secretary'Treasurer jackie Lacey f,as Angeles {-.'ounly Sergeant-At-Arms Annr: t4aric Sq*tubr:t1 Sacnntento diountV lmmsdiate Past Fresident Nnnqv {}'Maiicy Alnrcda toutttv }IRECTO&.$ Dalvn lllai{et ,Sauuntento Countv Dan llcw S-an Lttis {}hispo Arunty Gerald Finernal Rivt:rsitfu {)auntS, Nlaggie Ilcnring llutr;holdt tlount.v ftr.rnaid f. Frcit;:s -ian joaqa$n [ountv F{idi:rel }{estrin Rivt:rsidt: Cout:tfj, Jeii Laugerc ,9 t;s n i s ta t t "; il: u n tv .fi.obr,'rt Ir{ r:s i.xt a n Orunge L'oLtt4 'ft'ercv Pt'ir;r -\an lliego d'ounty Jef{'R*s*r Santa C.lera {:fi$iltv l,inr{say Wais}r .9a n ta {' la ra Crs u t l:St CEO l"4ark Iahncr September 8,2020 The Honoroble Govin Newsom Governor, Stote of Colifornio Stote Copitol Socromento, CA 95814 RE: AB 3234 (Ting) - Veto Requesl Deor Governor Newsom: The Colifornio District Attorneys Associqtion (CDAA) is strongly opposed to AB 3234, ond respectfully requests thot you veto the meosure. The moin provisions of this bill were token out of the Public Sofety troiler bill SB I l8 due to sensible ond well-founded opposition, but subsequently ond deceptively inserted into AB 3234 os o 'gut ond omend.'The billthen commenced o neorly unprecedented 'end run' on the usuol legislotive process. AB 3234 mokes sweeping chonges to public sofety policy ond could cost Colifornio untold millions in tronsportotion funds yet wos not heord in either the Assembly or Senote Public Sofety Committees, nor in ony Appropriotions Committee. The circumvention of procedurol due process wos breothtoking os ore the provisions of the bill discussed below. AB 3234 is bosed on on LA County pilot progrom, AB 2124from 2014, which expired in 2018. Thot pilot progrom opplied generolly to first time offenders ond included numerous exclusions - DUls, weopons chorges, crimes ogoinst elders ond minors, including possession of child pornogrophy ond onnoying or molesting o child. lt olso excluded defendonts who hod prior diversion ond defendonts with prior violence within the lost 10 yeors. Most of these exclusions were NOT included in AB 3234. Consequently, this billwould ollow o court to gront diversion for misdemeonor offenses, including DUls, elder obuse, ond fireorms offenses. Not only would these crimes be eligible for diversion, but the coses would be dismissed ond these crimes would be deemed never to hove occurred. Diversion will now olmost certoinly be sought in every eligible misdemeonor cose. Foilure by o defense ottorney to request it would likely be considered ineffective ossistonce of counsel. The foilure to odd DUI coses to the list of excluded crimes is both inexplicoble qnd grovely troubling ond should olone compel o veto. One of the effects of the enoctment of AB 3234 would be the oddition of Penol Code sections l00l .95 - l00l .97, crealing o "Court lnitioted Misdemeonor Diversion" progrom in which the court in its discretion, ond over the objection of the prosecutor, would be empowered to gront diversion on olmost oll misdemeonors (including violotions of 23152 VC ond misdemeonor violotions of 23153 VC... DUI ond misdemeonor DUI with injury). These gronts of diversion ore subject to olmost no restrictions or quolifying criterio, ond the period of diversion prior to dismissol is limlted to o moximum of 24 months. No minimum period is specified. Further, there is no limitotion ploced on the number of times thot diversion pursuont to this section moy be gronted to o porticulor defendont, nor ore ony guidelines set forth or limitotions imposed on how on individuol court chooses to exercise its discretion in gronting diversion pursuont to this section, oport from the exclusion of o smoll number of misdemeonor offenses {e.g., registeroble sex offenses, violotions of PC 273.5, etc.) from eligibility. As o procticol motter, this brood-ronging outhority of courts to gront diversion without limitotion on DUI offenses potentiolly hos o very serious impoct on the obility of the criminoljustice system to deol with chronic ond repeot DUI offenders. For decodes, troffic fotolity stotistics hove demonstroted thot recidivist impoired driving offenders pose on extreme donger to public sofety on our roodwoys due to their for higher likelihood of being involved in trqffic collisions resulting in deoth or serious bodily injury - not just to themselves, but to the innocent motorists ond their possengers who foll victim to the irresponsible conduct of the DUI driver. AB 3234 ploces no limitoiions whotsoever on the eligibility of repeot DUI offenders for diversion. Under this bill, it is entirely conceivoble thot o DUI offender could be gronted diversion in County A for o period of 6 months, successfully complete thot diversion, then be orrested in County B for DUI o week loter ond be gronted diversion yet ogoin, ond follow this pottern repeotedly, thereby ovoiding ever being octuolly identified os o high-risk, chronic, impoired driver. Worse, the opplicotion of current lows specificolly enocted to deol with recidivist DUI offenders which requires ihem to porticipote in educotion ond sobriety progroms, instoll ignition interlocks, etc. could eosily be circumvented, further jeopordizing roodwoy sofety. Aport from the negotive impoct on roodwoy sofety, AB 3234 potentiolly poses o serious fiscol issue os well. Colifornio receives substontiol federol highwoy sofety ond construction funding through the opplicotion of ihe FAST (Fixing Americo's Surfoce Tronsportotion) Act, the omnibus legislotion thot controls the opportionment of federol highwoy funds through the Federol Highwoy Administrotion. As did its legislotive predecessors (e.9., MAP-21 ond SAFETEA-LU), FAST sets out vorious performonce criterio ond requirements on the stotes thot offect the omount of federol highwoy funding thot o porticulor stote receives. Foilure to meet stondords or comply with requirements results in o reduction or redirection of the ollocoted funding. Among the requirements included in FAST ore specific stotutory ond procedurol benchmorks for deoling with repeot DUI offenders, colled "Complionce Criterio," thot include mondotory minimum sentences ond driver's license restrictions or suspensions, omong others. (see 23 CFR 1275.a@)). These criterio were included in FAST ond its predecessors to encouroge ond ensure thot stotes toke oppropriote meosures to oddress the serious legol ond societol issues resulting from impoired driving, recognizing olso the finonciol burdens ploced on vorious systems os the result of olcohol ond drug obuse combined with driving. Enoctment of AB 3234 would fly directly in the foce of the intent of these Complionce Criterio, potentiolly subjecting Colifornio ond Colifornio toxpoyers to the loss of untold millions of dollors in highwoy funding thot is criticolly necessory to mointoin ond expond our roodwoy infrostructure. (Becouse the billwos not heord in on Appropriotions Committee we hove no relioble estimote on the potentiol loss of revenue). Moreover, the bill could potentiolly impose significont costs on DMV for processing drivers whose licenses hove been suspended following on orrest for DUI qnd then ore reinstoted through the diversion this billwould offer. Rother thon being held occountoble ond treoted os required, repeot DUI offenders would hove o legol pothwoy to ovoidonce of responsibility. Drunk driving is still o deodly crime in Colifornio. Although drunk driving deoths hove decreosed by 52 percent since 1982, there were over 1,000 DUI deoths in 2018 olone. We hove been contocted by Mothers Agoinst Drunk Driving (MADD), which hos expressed grove concern obout the bill's potentiol for qdditionol olcohol ond drug reloted motor vehicle deoths ond the dongerous ond controdictory messoge thot possoge of such o billwould send. Since there is no octuol diversion requirement, i.e., you hove completed diversion when o judge soys so, o defendont could be relieved of the responsibility of ottending currently mondotory olcohol oworeness closses. And, os noted, o subsequent DUlwould not be prioroble since the first DUI would hove been deemed never to hove occurred. The billwould ollow this diversion gift to be offered to other repeoi offenders which meons thot new offenses, including felonies, will no longer be oble to ollege prior diverted chorges' The bill olso includes longuoge from the rejected budget troiler bill thot chonges the Elderly Porole Progrom. cunently, the bill outhorizes o review of the porole suitobility of inmotes who ore 60 v""" of oge or older ond who hove served o minimum of 25 yeors of continuous incorcerotion. Under the terms of this proposol elderly would now be considered 50 yeors of oge ond ovoiloble to on inmote who hod served 20 yeors of continuous incorcerotion' lf we hod been given more thon the two weeks in which this billwos fost trocked to your desk, CDAA could cite hundreds of exomples of dongerous ond violent criminols who committed heinous crimes qfter oge 50. For these reqsons, CDAA respectfully requests thot you veto Assembly Bill 3234. Thonk you for your considerotion of this request. lf you would like io discuss this issue further, pleose do not hesitote to contoct me' Very truly you6, i Lorry D. Morse ll Director of Legislotion I 2. J I J { tt ? s q t0 l, I: t3 l4 l5 l6 t7 t8 l9 20 2l )) :tl :5 ?6 2'7 1A PX.OOT OF SERVICK I am a ritizen of &e llnited States of fu*erica. I am over the age afi I8 and not p&rty to this action. My busineps address is. 32544 h4ain $treet. Hayward. CA 1)4541, in the Counry af Alarneda. at approximately ? t[ pnt,I served the Defbndant's Fetition fbr Misdem*at1or Diversinn Pursuant to Ca. Fen. C. $1i)01.95. on the parties to th* said action, b1' serving a trile copy *1g.*of, adrJresscd ax fbll$rts: $xnt* Clars Ctulrty llistrid Attorne-v?* ${Iic* 7{l lffest l{cdcli:*g St"o \#*st Wiag $an Jrsc (A gSIfil Caurth*use Box Ll"S. Fostal Se:v'ice. try placing such envelope{s} with po$tfige thereon, fully prepaid, in the d*signated area Ibr outgoing rnail in accr:rdance with rny ol'Ece's practices, whereby rnail ir deposited in an i-I.S. Mailbax in th* City af Hay',*:ard. County ol- Alameda" $rate af Calitbmia" Federal lixpress *r U.$"P.S. ***X-*re -mail (moti ons dra phox (-$dac. sc * gr:\,. org; OD A Cerl ie F i she I I gerlie. fi *hcl iQlda*. s*c gor,.crg) Expresr Mail Facsirnile 'i ransmission {Ph*ne }nirunbcr: Perstnal Sen ice I deelare, under the pen*lty of perjury, under the lavrs of the Stut* of Llalifomia, that the foregoing is true and correet and tlut this docurnsni was executed in f ial'"*'ard, Califtirnia on the ab*ve referenced date and time. PIiUPLI v L.t*T'l{}N FOI{ REt}'lt{Al, 1"{) rRiltrRL\l -l{- Jll.{NA l-1rN AI{Tr\J{,}$ Il tvL:R 5i$5; FLJRS L-iAlil' Trr F tr.N Al. C(.)l)t;. s I [0 1.s5 ph Fatrick McPeerk Iiigned sxd Printed hlan:e EXHIBIT D 4t HI I 1 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 13 t4 15 T6 L7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23) 24:l 2sl 26, :'"1 June 1,2021 Clerk of the Superior Court County of Sa c2005709 By: psoto JEFFREY ROSEN, SBN 163589 District Attorney of Santa Clara County HARJOT DHILLON, SBN 334993 Deputy District Attorney Office of the District Attorney 70 West Hedding, West Wing San Jose, California 95110 Telephone: (408) 792-2802 Attorneysfor the People of the State of Caltfornia PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. JEANALYN ARTAJOS, Defendant. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case No.: C2005709 PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION BRIEF TO DEFENSE MOTION TO MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION PURSUANT TO PENAL coDE $ 1001.9s Date: May 27,2021 Time: 1:30 PM Dept.:51 People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajos, C2005709! page 0 ( C I 2 aJ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l t2 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. II. IIL TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of the Case.......... .................. I Statement of Facts ...............1 Statement of Law and Argument............ ................2 A. Impaired Driving Is A Serious Risk to public Safety .........3 B. Vehicle Code Secti on 23640 Specifically Prohibits Diversion of DUI Offenses. . . 4 i. Vehicle Code Section 23640's Prohibition of DUI Diversion Survives the Enactment of AB 3234......... .................5 ii. Statutory Canons of Construction Support the Conclusion That DUIs Are Categorically Ineligible for Diversion Under Penal Code 1001.95............6 iii. Diversion of DUI offenses Is Inappropriate Because It Would Subvert the DUI Statutory Framework of Escarating consequences for Repeat Offenders.. ......... g C- The Specific Characteristics of This Case Militates Against Diversion.................9 Conclusion ......1IIY. People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajoso C2005709)- page 0 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l t2 13 t4 15 t6 t7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Birchfield v. North Dakota Q0I6) 136 S.Ct. 2160......... ........3 Burgv. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 257,267... ...........3 Coastside Fishing Club v. California Resources Agency (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 11g3.............7 Peoplev. Duncan (1990) 216Cal.App.3dl62t .....................4 People v. Johnson (1994) 30 Cal.App .4th286.... ................... g Mitchellv. Wisconsin(2019) 139 S.Ct. 2525,2535-36 .........3 Moore v. Superior Court (2020) 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 571 ..........5 R.R. v. Superior Court (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 185 ..............7 Tellez v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal.App .5th 439 .............5 Peoplev. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078......... ........................3 People v. Weatherin 0989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569 ........4, 5,7 STATUTES Cal. Penal Code g 191.5 ........ ............. g Cal. Penal Code g 187 ........... .............8 Cal. Penal Code g 2a3@) ....................2 Cal. Penal Code g 273.5 .....................2 Cal. Penal Code g 646.9 .....................2 Cal. Penal Code g 1000......... .............4 Cal. Penal Code g 1001.36 3,5,6 Cal. Penal Code g 1001.80 .................6 Cal. Penal Code g 1001.95(a) ............1 Cal. Pen. Code g 1001.97(a) ..............9 Cal. Vehicle Code 5 23152 ................. 1 Cal. Vehicle Code 5 23202 .................4 People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajos, C2005709)- page 0 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 t4 l5 t6 I7 l8 t9 2A 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cal. Vehicle Code $$ 23540, 23542....... ..............8 Cal. Vehicle Code $$ 23546, 23549 .....................8 Cal. Vehicle Code $ 23550.5 .............. g Cal. Vehicle Code g$ 23536-23538.......... ............8 Cal. Vehicle Code $$ 23550, 23552 .....................8 Cal. Vehicle Code $$ 23554, 23556....... ..............8 Cal. Vehicle Code g$ 23560, 23562 .....................8 Cal. Vehicle Code $ 23600..... ............4 Cal. Vehicle Code $ 23640..... ............3 People's opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajoso C2005709! page I I 2 aJ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 1,2 l3 t4 15 t6 I7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. L STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jeanalyn Artajos (hereinafter "Defendant") is charged with one count of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a),a misdemeanor and one count of Driving with a Blood and Alcohol Level of 0.08 or more, in violation of Vehicle Code section23l52(b). Defendant has filed a motion to for pre-trial diversion pursuant to penal Code section 1001-95 (Motion ('Mot.") at 1.) Because DUI's pose a heightened danger to society, the legislative history of Penal Code 1001.95 shows an intent to exclude driving under the influence ("DUI") offenses from diversion. Therefore, the Court should decline the Defense invitation to subvert the framework of progressive DUI penalties enacted by the Legislature following decades of policy deliberations and debate. The motion for diversion should be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS On February 28,2020, at approximately 1:40 A.M., California Highway patrol Deputy Van Gundy was driving his marked patrol vehicle northbound on United States Route l0l with Deputy Holden when he observed a white sedan traveling at a high rate of speed in the number two lane- The deputy conducted a bumper pace of the vehicle and observed it to be traveling at 93 miles per hour. The vehicle cut across the number three lane and into the number four lane before slowing down. Again, the vehicle sped up to 86 miles per hour. Officer Van Gundy initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle just east of united States Route 101 . Upon contacting Defendant through the driver's-side window of her vehicle, Deputy Holden observed the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from her car. Defendant was moving in a lethargic manner when asked to retrieve her license and registration. Additionally, Defendant exhibited red, watery eyes as well as slurred speech. Defendant exited her vehicle upon command but showed lethargic body movements when she stepped out. Defendant had to be told to stand by the marked patrol vehicle multiple times. Defendant admitted she had two Argry Orchard beers earlier indicated she o'can't tell you," whether she had taken any People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (people v. Artajos, C2005709t page I 1 2 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l t2 13 t4 15 I6 l7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (people v. Artajos, C2005709)- page 2 prescribed or recreational drugs. As Defendant spoke, the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitted from her person. Deputy Holden instructed Defendant on a series of Field Sobriety Tests (..FSTs,,) that she "did not complete as explained or demonstrated.,, (police Report ,.pol. Rep.,, Kg23773 at p' 4.) During the one Leg Stand, Defendant failed to keep her foot parallel to the ground and pointed her toes up during the duration of the test. (Pol. Rep. at p.3.) During the Walk and Turn, Defendant began the test prior to being instructed to do so, and she missed her heel to toe step before ending the test prematurely. (Pol. Rep. at p. 3.) During the Modified Romberg, Defendant estimated a thirty second stop time at fifteen actual seconds. Defendant also displayed a lack of smooth pursuit in her eyes, as well as sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation. (Pol' Rep. at p. 3.) Defendant then refused to take a Preliminary Alcohol Screen ("PAS"). Based on Defendant's objective signs and symptoms of impairment including the observations of her driving, her poor performance on FSTs, her statement of being unable to recall whether she had ingested medicinal or recreational drugs, her inability to follow basic instructions, and her admission to drinking alcohol, Defendant was placed under arrest. (pol. Rep. at p.4.) Deputy Holden read Defendant an implied consent under Vehicle code 23162. Defendant chose a blood test. Defendant was transported to the Alcohol Intoxication Bureau ("AIB") at4:04am, where a certified phlebotomist drew two vials of Defendant,s blood. (pol. Rep. at p. 4.) The deputy took possession of the blood vials and placed them in an evidence folder before depositing the signed vials into an AIB evidence locker. Defendant,s blood alcohol content was tested to be 0.104 (g%). I. Section pretrial Effective January r,2021, Assembly Bil 3234 (*AB 3234,,) as codified in penal code 1001.95 gives trial court judges the discretion, over the People's objection, to grant diversion in a misdemeanor case subject to limited exceptions,l for a period not to ' A defendant is ineligible for diversion under this section if charged with: (l) any offense requiring sex offender registration under Penal Code Secti on290 upon conviction; (2) domestic violence resulting in injury (pen. code, g 273.5); (3) domestic battery (pen. code, g i+r1e;;; I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 u L2 13 14 15 t6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 exceed 24 months and under terms the judge deems appropriate. (pen. Code, $ i001.95, subds. (a)-(b).) 2 If the defendant complies with the imposed terms and conditions, at the end of the period of diversion, "the judge shall dismiss the action against the defendant.,, (pen. Code, $ 1001.95, subd. (c).) However, the legislative history of Penal Code sections of 1001.95 as well as recent court guidance regarding Penal Code 1001.36's potential conflict with VC 23640 show that DUIs are excluded from the purview of AB 3234 suchthat DUI offenses are not eligible for diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95. Even if the Court believes diversion of DUIs is permitted under Penal Code section 1001.95(a), the Court should decline the Defense,s invitation to subvert the intricate statutory framework of DUI deterrence enacted by the Legislature to address the serious risks to public safety posed by DUIs. Finally, the specific facts of this case do not support diversion. The Court should deny Defendant,s motion for diversion and allow criminal prosecution to proceed. A. IMPAIRED DRIVING IS A SERIOUS RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY. "Drunk drivers take a gnsly toll on the Nation's roads, claiming thousands of lives, injuring many more victims, and inflicting billions of dollars in property damage every year.,, (Birchfield v- North Dakota (2016) 136 S.Ct. 2160,2166,2178 fintemal citations omitted; explaining "[o]ur cases have long recognized the 'camage'and 'slaughter, caused by drunk drivers" and noting "annual fatalities in drunk-driving accidents rang[ing] from 13,sgzdeaths in 2005 to 9,865 deaths in 201 7"f; see also Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2525,253s- 36 [internal citations omitted, emphasis in original; referring to the effects of drunk driving as "slaughter' comparable to the ravages of war,"""frightful carnage,,,, o,,tragic,,,, and "'astounding,"' andnoting "behind this fervent language lies chilling figures, all captured in the fact that from 1982 to 2016, alcohol-related accidents took roughly 10,000 to 20,000 lives in this Nation every single year.,,).f and (4) stalking (Pen. Code, $ 646.9). (Pen. Code, $ 1001.95(a).) violence resulting in injury !Pen, code, g 273.5); (3) domesric battery @en. coie, $ za:(e)); and (a) stalking (pen. code, g 646.9). (Pen. Code, g 1001.95(a).) 2 Although the constitutionality of Section 1001.95 is not addressed herein, the people explicitly do not concede this issue. People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (people v. Artajos, C2005709| page 3 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 t4 15 t6 L7 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The California Supreme Court has recognized Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) as a valid exercise of the Legislature's "clear and legitimate purpose" to "regulate drinking drivers in a state that experienced338,344 arrests for 'drunk driving' in 1982." (Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 257,267,272 fnoting scientific evidence that typically vision impairment begins at 0.03-0.08 percent blood alcohol and reaction-time impairment begins at 0.04 percent]; see also People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1086 fcomparing a drunk driver to a "'bomb,' and a mobile one at that.',].) B. VEHICLE CODE SECTION 23640 SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS DIVERSION OF DUI OFFENSES. In recognition of the devastating toll of DUIs to the victims of alcohol-related traffic accidents, the Vehicle Code has prohibited pretrial diversion of DUI cases since 19g1. Vehicle Code section 23 640 provides, Itt gy case in which a person is charged with a violation of Section 23152 or 23153-, prior to acquittal or conviction, the court shall neither r.,rp*rO ,rot stay the.proceedings f_or_the purpose of allowing the accused p"rrlon to attend or participate, nor shall the cburt consider disliissal or enteitain a motion to dismiss the proceedings because the accused person attends or participates during that suspension, in any one or more education, training, o. ir"ui-ent programs. . . . Cal. Veh. Code g 23640(a).3 Section 23640 has been the law in California for nearly 40 years. Its predecessor statute, former Vehicle Code section23202,was enacted "in response to growing public concern about intoxicated drivers." (People v. Duncan (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1621,162g [holding driving under the combined influence of alcohol and controlled substance charge was categorically ineligible for pretrial drug treatment diversion under Penal Code section 1000 given legislative intent "to make it more difficult for committing [DUIs] to avoid conviction and to increase the penalties consequent upon such a conviction,,]). 3 Vehicle Code section23600 imposes similar postconviction restraints on sentencing in DUI cases. (See Duncan,216 Cal.App. 3d at p. t628.) It prohibits courts from staying or iuspending pronouncement of sentence in DUI cases and from absolving DUI defendanti of their "obligation of spending the minimum time in confinement, if any, or of paying the minimum fine imposed by law." (Cal. Veh. Code g 23600(c).) People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajos, C2005709)-page 4 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l l2 13 t4 15 T6 t7 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Vehicle Code sections 23202 and23600 were enacted as part of a set of reforms to Califomia's driving-under-the-influence laws under Assembly Bill 541. (People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1574 [noting "in the years 1976 to 1980 there were many more injuries to Califomia residents in alcohol-related traffic accidents than were suffered by the entire Union Army during the Civil War, and more were killed than in the bloodiest year of the Vietnam War."]) Vehicle Code23202was included specifically to bar the "diverse and voluminous diversion programs" that had proliferated in the state "under the auspices of the court, the district attorney and the defense counsel" to divert driving under the influence defendants. (Id. at 1576.) The "legislative intent, as revealed by the history of AB 541, accords with the plain meaning of section 23202: all driving under the influence defendants, without exception, shall have their guilt or innocence determined without delay or diversion." (Weatherill,2l5 Cal.App.3d at 1573 [concluding, after factoring in "extrinsic aids including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the stafute is apart" that section 23202 precluded all diversion of DUI offenses, including diversion for the developmentally disabled under Penal Code section 1001.211.) While Defendant argues the omission of DUI's on the excluded charges in penal Code section 1001.95 constitutes an inclusion for DUI's in pre-trial diversion programs, the legislative history of AB 3234 itself"contains no references to misdemeanor DUI offenses or to Vehicle Code section23640." (Moore,272 Cal.Rptr.3d 571, 584.) Defendant cites Tellez v. Superior Court, (2020) 45 Cal.App .sth 439, for the court's dicta that the Legislature,s failure to expressly exclude DUI offenses this time around is a good indicator that it intended DUI offenses to be eligible for the new misdemeanor program. However, the Tellez court expressly concluded that it did "not believe it is clear whether DUI offenses are eligible for the new People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v, Artajos, C2005709)- page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 13 t4 15 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 misdemeanor diversion program, and we need not decide the issue." (Tellez,27o Cal.Rptr.3d at 424.) Further, if the Court applied the reasoning of Tbllez,the opinion militates against such a conclusion .In Tellez, the defendant argued the trial court erred in finding DUIs were categorically ineligible for mental health diversion under Penal Code 1001.36 and applied for a peremptory writ of mandate to the Court of Appeal. The defendant in Tellez argued that the mental health statute had exciuded specified offenses such as murder and rape under subdivision (b)(2) of the statute but had not expressly excluded DUIs. Tellez,like Defendant here, contended that therefore, the trial court should have inferred that the Legislature intended to allow DUIs to be diverted under the mental health statute. The Fourth District rejected this argument. The Tellez court noted that the Legislature had just amended the military diversion statute in August 20L7 to add the provision that "[n]otwithstanding any other law, including section 23640 of the Vehicle Code,,, DUIs could be diverted under military diversion per Penal Code section 1001 .SO. (Id. at 423.) Thus, the Legislature was "familiar with the conflict between Vehicle Code section23640 and the diversion statutes and knew how to clariff that the diversion statute should control over the Vehicle Code, having recently confronted the issue with respect to military diversion.,, (/d.) Against this backdrop, the Fourth District held that the fact the Legislature declined to insert similar language in the mental health diversion statute in September 20lg when it enacted the statute conclusively manifested the Legislature's intent for Vehicle Code 23640 to prevail in the mental health diversion context. (Id. at 422-23.) The Tellez court also rejected Defendant's argument that a change to the Senate Bill for mental health diversion that struck a provision which would have expressly excluded DUI offenses was an indication of the Legislation's intention to permit DUIs to be diverted under the mental health diversion scheme. (Id- at 423.) Critically, the Fourth District concluded that acourt had no need to ..read ineligibility of DUI offenses into penal code section 1001 .36 -\tehicle code 23640 accomplishes that." (Id.; emphasis added.) People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diyersion (People v. Artajoso C2005709)- page 6 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll L2 13 t4 15 t6 I7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Less than two months after it published the Tellez opinion, the Fourth District again took up the issue of whether DUIs were categorically ineligible for mental health diversion in Moore v. Superior Court. (Moore,272 Cal.Rptr.3d,57L) The Fourth District explained that it was publishing another opinion on the subject to "illustrate that several canons of stafutory construction buttress Tellez's holding.,, (Id. at 575.) The panel in Moore reiterated that courts are required to "assume that the Legislature, when enacting a statute, was aware of existing related laws and intended to maintain a consistent body of rules." Qd. at 578 [instructing that "[a]bsent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal [of one statute] 'only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes . . . and the statutes are irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation"'; intemal citation omitted].) After applying the various canons of statutory interpretation, the Moore court concluded that the mental health diversion statute did not repeal Vehicle Code 23640 and that defendant's exhortation to "[a]pply[ ] the canon that later enactments supersede earlier ones would contravene the Legislafure's intent in this case.,, (Id. at 583.) Similarly, AB 3234 was introduced in February 2020-less than two and half years after the Legislature amended the military diversion statute to specify DUIs applied notwithstanding the provisions of Vehicle Code section23640.If the Legislature intended to include DUIs in the new misdemeanor diversion scheme, it knew how to do so.a The fact thatit a To the extent that Defendant contends the Governor's signing statement that he was "concerned that the crime of driving under the influence was not excluded from the misdemeanor diversion program," and would o'seek to expeditiously remedy this issue with the Legislature in the next legislative session," is somehow indicative tirat DUf; are eligible under 1001-95, courts have repeatedly found held that the governor's signing statement is not binding authority and "may not even be a reliable indicator of legislative intenJ." (See Moore,272 cal.Rptr.3d at 585, n.12 [citing R.R. v. superior court lzooe; 1g0 cal.App.4th lg5,20l; Coastside Fishing Club v. California Resources Agency (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 11g3, 1196, n.71.) People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v, Artajos, C2005709)-ptge 7 I 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 u t2 13 t4 15 t6 t7 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 chose not to clearly evinces its intention for this diversion stafute to join the many others-all except military diversion---enacted by the Legislature that exclude DUI offenses. Moreover, "[w]hen a general statute conflicts with a specific statute, the specific statutes controls the general one." (Weatherill,2l5 Cal.App.3d at 1577-78 [holding Vehicle Code section23202 barring DUI diversion controlled over the general statute penal Code section 1001.21 because the subject matter of section 1001.21 "comprehends hundreds of misdemeanors in scores of codes and is therefore a general statute" but section Z3212applies to o'a single type of conduct," driving under the influence, and o'comprehends only two statutes, sections 23152 and23153"].) Here, the new misdemeanor diversion statute also comprehends misdemeanors in scores of codes as compared to Vehicl e 23640, the modern reenactment of YC 23202. Statutory canons of construction similarly support the conclusion that Vehicle Code 23640 controls over the new general misdemeanor diversion statute. Defense counsel cites the rule of lenity saying that the rule applies "only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregious ambiguity and uncertainty to justifz invoking the ruIe.,,(Mot. at 3.) For all the reasons discussed above, that is simply not the case here. A review of the case law and statutory history surrounding DUIs shows there is no ambiguity as to whether DUIs are statutorily eligible for diversion absent an explicit inclusion in a diversion statute. They are not. Shortly after the enactment of AB 3234, the legislature introduce d AB 2BZ, to amend Section 1001.95 of the Penal Code to explicitly exclude DUI offenses from being eligible for diversion. The Public Safety Bill Analysis dated April 5,2021indicates that the purpose of the amendment is to clarify whether a DUI offense is ineligible for court-initiated misdemeanor diversion under AB 3234.In its' reasoning, the legislature explains that to avoid conflicting court opinions regarding eligibility of DUIs for diversion as was previously seen in the context of military diversion, "[t]his bill would correct a similar ambiguity in the court initiated 28 People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajos, C2005709)- page g I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t L2 13 14 15 t6 t7 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 misdemeanor diversion statute enacted by AB 3234 -whether a misdemeanor DUI offense is eligible for court initiated diversion. Under this bill, a court would be prohibited from granting misdemeanor diversion on a DUI offense * i.e., DUIs would be ineligible for court initiated misdemeanor diversion." Because of the excessive risk to public safety posed by drunk drivers, the Legislature has developed a statutory scheme with increasing statutory minimums designed to increase penalties for repeat offenders across the board. (See Veh. Code $$ 23536-23568; pen. Code g 191.5(d).) The Vehicle Code and Penal Code provide that DUl-related convictions increase punishment for subsequent DUI convictions occurring within a certain period, including the charge of a felony-misdemeanor wobbler under Vehicle Code section 23550.5 after certain offenses. (see veh. code gg 23540,23546,23550;pen. code $ 191.5(d).)s In the most serious cases, prior DUI convictions can be used as evidence of ..implied malice" to support a charge of vehicular murder under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). (See, e-g., People v. Johnson (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th286,29I l"thereason that driving under the influence is unlawfalis because it is dangerous, and to ignore that basic proposition, particularly in the context of an offense for which the punishment for repeat offenders is more severe [ ], is to make a mockery of the legal system as well as the deaths of thousands each year who are innocent victims of drunk drivers."].) A grant of pretrial diversion under section 1001.95 would result in the priorable charge's dismissal and permit a repeat offender to escape 5 A second offense under section 23152(a) or (b) mandates a minimum of ten days in jail with a grant of probation. (Veh. Code $$ 23540,23542). A third offense mandates a minimum of 120 days in jail or 30 days and a 30-month rehabilitation program with a grant of probation. (Veh. Code $$ 23546,23548.) A fourth offense mandates a minimum of tSO dayi inlail, or 30 days and a 30-month rehabilitation program with a grant of probation. (Veh. Coie 95 ZISSO, 23ss2.) A first offense of Vehicle Code section23l53, subdivision (a) or (b) mandates a minimum of 5 days in jail with a grarfi of probation. (Veh. Code, $g 23554, 23556.) A second offense mandates a minimum of 120 days in jail or 30 days and an 18-month or 30-month rehabilitation program with a grant of probation. (veh. Code, g$ 23560, 23562.) People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v, Artajos, C2005709)- page 9 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l t2 13 t4 15 T6 t7 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the escalating consequences enacted by the Legislature to specifically combat this pernicious crime- Because the statute provides that "the arrest upon which diversion was imposed shall be deemed to have never occurred," (Pen. Code $ 1001 .97(a)), the court in a future DUI is presumably barred from considering the prior diverted offense for purposes of discretionary sentencing. A defendant may even seek to capitalize on this language to press for a second or third bite at the diversion apple for additional DUI offenses. The Court should deny Defendant's motion for Section 1001.95 diversion in this case. A grant of diversion would effectively subvert the sentencing framework enacted over several decades to deter DUI crimes and does not serve the Legislature's clear and legitimate purpose in combatting the pervasive danger created by impaired drivers in California. C. THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS CASE MILITATES AGAINST DTYERSION. The facts of this case warrant against diversion. While the People are empathetic to Ms. Artajos' life circumstances, they are insufficient to warrant dismissal of such a dangerous crime. Ms. Artajos put her life and the life of other drivers on the road at risk by getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. Defendant was keenly aware that she had a couple of drinks before taking the wheel. Defendant was so impaired that she operated her vehicles at speeds up to 93 miles per hour. In fact, Defendant's vehicle cut across the number three lane and into the number four lane before slowing down. Thereafter, Defendant accelerated her vehicle up to g6 miles per hour before fortunately being stopped by law enforcement. When Defendant was contacted, she moved in a lethargic manner and by her own estimation could not determine whether she had taken any reueational or medicinal drugs prior to driving. Defendant admitted to having consumed multiple alcoholic beverages, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitted from her vehicle and person. Defendant exhibited numerous objective signs and symptoms of impairment including red, watery eyes and slurred speech. Defendant also could not satisfactorily perform any FSTs, and she was so impaired she could follow basic instructions. From her own admission, Defendant could not state whether she had taken recreational or medicinal drugs prior to driving. Considering the circumstances of Defendant's People's Opposition to Defense Motion for Misdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajos, C2005709)- page I0 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 t1 t2 13 t4 l5 16 17 l8 l9 2A 2t 22 23 24 25 26 2l 28 physical state and pattern of driving, it is fortunate nobody on United States Route 101 was maimed or killed. Defendant could have easily taken an Uber, Lyft or other ride-share service home. Contrary to Defense counsel's representation, the police report does not indicate Defendant was "otherwise cooperative" (Mot. at 3). Defendant refused to take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening, a measurable aid in determining whether she was under the influence of alcohol. Defendant also stated she could not recall whether she ingested recreational or medicinal drugs prior to driving. Defendant only provided a chemical blood test after being read an implied consent form. More notable is the fact that Defendant's blood was measured to be 0.104 at or around 4:04arn. This is nearly three hours after Defendant was observed operating her vehicle in a recklessly dangerous manner. Defendant's blood alcohol content at her time of driving was likely far higher than that recorded in the toxicology report for this case. The characteristics of the crime and Defendant's failure to accept responsibility for her actions weigh against diversion. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied. ATED: May 25,2021 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JEFFREY F. ROSEN District Attorney &-y|,iu fis{ul People's Opposition to Del'ense ll{otion for l}Iisderneanor Diversion (Peopte v. Artajos, C2005709)- page I I I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 t2 13 l4 15 t6 l7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case: People v. Jeanalyn Docket No: C2005709 Andrea Artajos PROOF OF SERVICE June 1,2021 Clerk of the Superior Court County of Sa c2005709 By: psoto I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of Califomia. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is: Office of the District Attomey, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose Califomia 95110. On May 28r2021 I served the following docunent(s) upon the interested parties herein by the method(s) indicated below: PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE MOTION FOR MISDEMEANOR DTVERSTON PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE $$ 1001.9s BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, for postage and deposit with the U.S. Postal Service on the same date it is submitted for mailing, and addressed as follows: BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-carried to the recipient at the address indicated: BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION: by emailing a tme copy thereof to the recipient at the email address indicated: Joseph Patrick Mcpeak info@redmetric.com BY COLTNTY PONY MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: - BY HAND DELIVERY: by hand-delivering a true copy thereof to the following: I declare under penaity of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 28r 2021at San Jose, California. W"!:y Harjot Dhillon Deputy District Afforney x People's Opposition to Defense Il{otion for 1l{isdemeanor Diversion (People v. Artajos, C2005709)- Page 12 l( C EXHIBIT E 42 HI I RfiN MffiTX.JC, APC Dani*i H. \raxwani {$t*t* &ar Nurnhrr: :? I $jZ} J*reptr Pairiak Mcpe*k {[itat* *xr FJ*n:her: 314lgq] Simure Sr*ia Chamblirs ($rxte gwrT4*rnier: 33I?13] 22.544 Mai* $tr*nt Hayrvard, C*litrirxi a g 4 S 4 I Phn*e: 510.*SS.SS?* Facsinrile: BBB.90S"g! 40 Emxil : ir f*@Rede{etric c*nr Att*rn*y* f*r the Srf*rdant ./****lytt Ar{*j 26 THE C:,ERE: &sserfibly Sill 3234 by AeeerabLy Membar ?ing, ln accoladirg the ,public safety. ffiE CHAIR: $fr" Ting. It*,. TI$O; yW?Iq y6u,,.r,lr, ,epeaker. AB 3234 .givea Judgee the discret.ion to arlor", individuar"e charged with firisde$€a$or* ta inatead take part ia a diversian pv,qram" rt aleo ichanq*e rh* el"iglbility for eiderl_y pareJ.e frarn 60 ye&rs Ec QA ysqra qsd time,aer,ved from IS tc 20 year6. t. , ,a*.As I mentioned earlier, tre took ameadme&ts to remcve cotaideratiou of aex offe[ses and doftestic violeace offeneee froa the diveraion prQgram. Nothing in rhie 0,, .ri";;;; au'ff,*t'ic releaee,of ary priuoner* or people who are arreeh,ed f.,r misdemeanors, it juat gives thern the crpportu*itv t* r. -- expanded in rhe perole pool if Cheyrre elderly Br to havel, :.::judgea have th*-arccrer:.ar: if *- Eiven the discreti*a to give th:r* a4 o3p*rrr:nr{y..to'ga'f,o a',,di'erslon prograxa. A:rd again. u4der tbis- bill j{:igea hava th*,diecretion to decide if a per'*r would be britrer eerved wlth a rehabilitative diversion program inetead of ertering inLo the criminal juseice sys'em. &rd there t*'e u ,pl]^ol. in tos &nge3.es. I{e e ar tha"t courL costx upwarde could be up to r.2,000 per day a ho,d, And they provided diver*io4,for nr*re tien e,'ss lndl:ri"d*al.p sv*r e.-"L'a-yexr pericd. uuhich, sawd a etgutftcant anrount nf mrney" rn the last I0 ye6rs, e}derly prisonera age 5s yeara and, 0t-SSAftU1 S:dSAh* c}ll.trffiNiA STATE AS8Etu6tY o_z+ffi *t&u{*24, ?}90 7a*&2 L 4 , { b 6 I * a 10 1:. 1! 1a 15 16 Lt I8' 10 20 4J- 22 t5 :{ 35 older have grorxr,:feli.mally blr,soc medical care grolr{.ng exponenlially. tr)*rcent, with the cust On average, the sosf ef of an iaraate ie abcu[ ].00, G00. But fcr our most elderly eld*rly doec nat nur&er *f uoaro" Hirh 3!34" i:xnates, t'he cast l"s*ld uuo up ta''zss ta 30*0000. & study by Eh* ']ustice rclrc{ :&aiitut* -ro,rra that, recidivinm ,ur" r*, I rySpecrfu1ty aak f*r '1 rr: XTtg ffnIR:: {hat*}r yau; }.1r" rir:g. str. Cooper, gou are recoguized. ''. I HH,. ,CSOF&RT jyeah, a quertim fsr the authr:r. THE CH&IR: Hllbout o,bJecrlon. llR COOFER: 0kay. It's goEten belter __ Irllr on qf o$E time now. rt, has gotte* bet'er. but eriu, fsr have DUr with: release any'eld*rly pris*nere. {r etderlfjFrieanars, sh* ean E* in ex-pr{*oae{qa *a* *nly 3 p*rcelt. thar Again, the bill luBL expands the fronE of the Farole : - .tr4t9,., Cqq*ry,r .reo+bi;-x ea alj" f,or rhe -* '*orreafja ,,, ', '' '$4" ,TINgl 1$rg ,;-, f,cr,,the rem{xrea th* cqnqi{ereiiou sf ae}r violence offenses. injury, firearme *ffenxee, loaded, fireifrq in ;pulttc" buLlding. So r+hile it,e a ;stilL eame issueslthaL I,m : '?udlcial $irnersioa pr*gram offeuses and dr:mestic ca{ryry$ *,concealed fireann. brtnging a deadly Heapon Eo a seate better bill- thal it r+ae, Ehere are firmly, *ppox*d b* it.. ^aad als$, your ?ye vste nn A.g the. miedemeanor .stuff .l i- 2,6 0f-2S,2$2I B;4BAM UALIFSfiflllA SIATE &Se&MSLy.eI{-3* &tg!r$|r4, ?S*fi ]" , 3 * 5 o ? U I 1S 11 LZ L} I"4 1S :"5 L7 IA 15 a* ?3. dd, 23 l* t3 26 jerat a*o[h*r gr,ree€ioa'far :rh*,,autksr- ?]r* child parnography porfion was Ealen;out,; ir that correcL? t{H.. COOFER: i*&*,,panxeaetcn, sf *hild,p*ry1r:grap}y..: , .: .r. I : H8.. ?IgS: Wt --'{,be}i&ve.,ao, ye*. That,s ruy understanding. x,..1 l{R' cooFER: so } need to -* r need ta be eure on Ehat P*t, because this lras throvor togetber. And Ehere'e bee$ al Ist of g*sd ar*emdrpents that made tke btl] ketter, but that ie qq irqlorta:r* pprt j, xa,lerrro'that paorre tlrat, are ixv*,lved ir: : lhile pornographytri.ght,narr. :!{* aie eeeing iu the treade Lhey hava acted t .rmre'duriqg covm, & lot ,$f farkn,l:: Tt'* Eeen a 1ot *f abuse of ehiJ.dren take prace. obviouery if *ou'eone is dffisloadirg chirLd porncrgraphy, Lhere ie a goad shance they will act upop tbat. So junt eome issuee fundammt,aLly tha{., you know, we need to get there. so it trsuld be helpfur jusr to know if Lhat,s etirr a portion of , Ehe bii.l or if iE'hae been rema,ved. i HB" TrNG; rfy underetandinE re that that should noE be Frt of the bill. .n-lr the aex offensee and rhe dameetiq vlolence offeneee r*ere arl remcved, rhat is ray -- that re rr,y 'I'$n, CCIqFE*l ,,, Olca11,, ,ttrank you. II{E CI&IR; ?hank you, }-fr. Cooper. $eeing n* athsr meobers eeekinE re*oguttre* on the i*em. !{r. fiag, ,polr may. close* if ''ycu rrish. 81-2s?021&4SA[,1 c*Lrem{l* sr.q?E eiffi r*Fry sia-w Augt{"!* 44.-Z*gS 1 : 3 4 5 6 7 I o 1il 11 ta 13 3.4 t") :"6 77 Ls vcte, vcte. voIe. flerk, ra:.f p*r rol.l. "etl n*lubu* .roa*. &lL n*mbcr&.*e*. A deaire to vahe, & deelre tbtv*te," &I1 manrbexs vote. & derire Lc *,lL members .* deeire to (Itrererryon the voting wae held, )rirn ,, p*,ci*rf, *ifi clqee ro1)., hally Ehe yore. t{r. Cafd i ,ycru,ire-.agaia .recogFized.for r,o*ur proceduraf motion; :" 1 i,,.,. i, : , lm. eafm*i . @ r;,,,i!{r. e:eeher. :t,ra requeecing ,, p1it*l'u.c*n**tji* ** , ioio, nulu s: {al -to ;;;;:. requirement to a110rs the ,]udiciary corxniEtee Eo hear -, ;;; t8radf*rdt a"A, m,:103i '' , i, i (Stone) on l{edneeday upm call of theehair" Qrx q*ryx;,,,-*r m. ff,Ogfg; ,! Flores, floor purtr,ose, sir? r*itbhold unanimoue cotrgeut and ask for a 10 20 31 2A 3] 2,rl 3S 26 resall. rcte, TriE ffiAIR: Sr. Flores ie '*ithholding. IIr. Calderon r$*ves. Sf-zFffnt E:,*eAl,t I ,2 3 * 5 q4plF.onnr*,srarr cmgfr Cf ifn&S$O , grarEiQr fii*r,rt*t $ t::-. :r''t t. -.:::r a , . i.:.llir ,;; !:, 1" -::. .\::..: ' .:. 6 t rg 9: 1{t 1t tr, '13'., t4 l"! t5 L',t,, - r' IARY B.' l"yfu*, orfloirr cerrified thorrhand leforUer of the sni" ot catifornin, "o*a, ", ***". * l. ll celtrrr thar rhe ,;;;*.;n .*or"5lp*, ;r;;-;'.n*r*5, lnclua{vo, *e ",,f*rrr*r*, ,tr,e and co*ast o*"*rr;;;: :t * orrr"*i" ilrto er"amlly dircuas":.", *J;l:or ro ::t.^: * uu *d tec resutts of rhe *.*, *ru * ;;-- "" 2d, 2o?0. tho 18 ,19 ,2A :a1 AA '?3, ?4. :, 3$, 2A "j :} '';:!".',::::' i ir,,: ,,..:':x.:: t:',,:. 3'':"i' ,,i 'X :. ,, ,. : :'':ii 'i:i.' :t.a.::tiar::. ::= :' i : -: .i.t. . 01-2$-20tt,B:48*Ri CAL,F0&iI,A SrA?E A$eiegrv *Ae.W &r$6194,8ffi* l*de:e ecting eomebody to be in prieoa for r{hatever many years ,nd firuy,re get.ting oug and Lhey have to relive nct only the crime [haE, r,raa perpetrated againet them ae a victim but, aleo r*orry about, beiag protected ftrom the police, r+hich r*elre obvlouely changing t'he whol* role of the police d*partmenE and defunding theru. fflnere's the protection gcing Eo come frcm theae victins. f iuas .havlng ,a ,conrrerflatlm oi*, * colleague a.nd that calleagiue said, ,,l{el1, they can get a rentrai-niag crder, 't $Ihen som*bcdy i.s cmrui:rg after yanr urbh tile inrerrl cot- csurnit you harur, raving a little piece of paper ia not golng to make them go eyey 0r ebop. .So fa refe**c,'*, ,urrd I iealise, iit* tU* budgeteer sald -- she ie veqy smarL and she ie very arricurate and, ehe understands all iae nnrdget atuff . r don't evea knou hor+ she keeps iL.otrai.ghrinrtt a3&.the,.budget blr.le that gei thra*gh, But r uaderstand Ebat it i-s gainE Eo aave the stace ncney to reieaee these peaple lnto the peneive to h*eSr,peopl'e in FE:{6qu" ' frrtt thaeq people are in pri*on, tried by a jury of bheib p*era,'and tbey are in priaan for a reasos. Axd f hrtr't you to try to thlnk ahout the victims that, uil} be aeeer-rited, again uhen individr:ala are rereaeed. F*ge 7 01-252021 8:4IAh,l c&,r0nr{,A STATE SEh'AtE. es1 _2e 4rprs{Ar,ffiO 1 j ? *--.- ' ': '' -*jqg*s . f r respeclft{ly a*k-:fer a rx} yole" *l 2 j nU CHAIRT ,Thenk you, Senatar Grove. i t senaror $ki*ner. ?{outd rou __ ;;;;: Now we hear you. : i ;1e::::*T*, r,n uor in oour,o, ", ,nr_ ;;:.r"".5 I I:HB CHAIR: There you g0. u I sEr{AroR immm: All right., I rHE aarR: yor r.ay proceed.I i sErmoR si(rlrtr{&.: rhan}q ,l 16 aA^*r_,_ : you, I arn conpoeing myeelf . Its j is eeemiugly pCInuflar,,tc.th: :?-H*{" ttt'r*E*f,. r | .vr arlrurlc very luaecujtsafr* :nAr.0 { eeaaaticnal erariFrice ab*r:,.j;ff ",il]"i:::": *u Lr. J,acroaa *** *:*_r*f, when acru";;;;;;r#';:ff"i: 1; J ;:: :I::i:j n*,*' ;" ; ;;;;"...., il,,,*-,*. :: i T* yorrrinu to oi rrliLh rhe orr, *roru ;;. ;; ; :t4 [ clarifr r*hat ie iril ,lr* bil1 before us -v +uL ,,rE :: f ,. ._T.:: * rte bill before u, i" nor a srare mandare.16 I :t is an ability *o" a court, if a ";;;;;;;';;: _ :: i:::t. to be able ro eerabrieh a;;;;;";;'"' ;,,"*;"ln",ut: ; j::::,:"r:ru of crirues rhar have been excl;.--;;;;_20 | nof ali.ow f. ' ' -:'-*-r+e*' *u 'Lc GofJ ---.. -sr -- spclqEiee, r'm Juar rookixg.&t v Nqtes _* :: f ::^:.: ::. ar.row for sex affetreec, aarnee*l iL;, . :: {*,,1. varietY of, -- ard ar *;*** ;';;;;;;;;'; - :: j:l:::::o,:,-so rhese *'uld be nuiede,ne**;;-.]r"*__ *u ;: I::::::.:T'domeerie rriorence a,rd s.alk;";. ;;;:f' :: i I"]3-- sr: this ie p*relv aptiona' ,or "our*; ;;;r;--;;x,;L ...._ : At-Z&;mU 6;47Airt I C*,1-lFOAf'{t q SYATS SEhtA?*,&*t-20 I A*gurt S1. ?0p6 PEgs I 1& 3 4 5 6 I & o IU 11 L2 J.J :.rt 1"5 16 77 1g 19 2g AL : t,t 23 *{ 25 26 :r::::t* prosiram rhab r,_ae been operatirs ," ;-o. ._r.rr; a nu*&er of .yearr j ?hat'i* firpt aud fcremcst" rhsr is ,*e l":"t* proEraft,rhai ie in r'is bill. rt is not - ,,*u"a-. iE ie an auth*rizinE this etateurde. rr ie all0wing counties if they nc choase aad courrs" eeccrnd cgql*n*nt of this biLl " [he secoad conpcrient of thr'* biu ie a .revisr-on to Lhe legislaturer' 'wn "nn"*r,*ustatutes around ned.:ical parole. lfsw, our med.ic*, ;;;;- -- ,slatnte requlqe*, ,if ,tke cscfr.iecsrrmenda *_ end of course thi"* requires cDc,R to recom,nend -- an individual for medicalparole' That in*jvidua] etiu nuet go before the paroLe b*ard" so thie h*s }g,tryng to do wibh the rereau** a*a aou Soveraor recantlyrJaliqred.eue tn CAW$. And thsse reLeasee urere excluded to Sieople r+ho were r+ithin one year of release. .&nd the eq,vernsr ka*'different authoritiea for auch rereaaee. rki's hitl daes no& rouch rbsse. rhiu bilL anly ;-;;;;-;-' or*n etat'ute uhere a peraor'. an incarcerated ildividual, if bhey'are recor'rren{ed by the prison system to be coneidered f*r rnesical rarall, th.ey wour-d stlr.r have to g* bef,ore rhe parcle hoard, the,parole board would etill revi.ew it, vict.ime sould he able to {r:me friz'rard, Judges, D.A. !- ".;; ;-r;;-;;:And if r+e look hidroricalJ.y over the ten, say, oCO y**rJ-.;;; 1* have had, su*h @dJ"ca3, p4ic'e, Ih*re have beer: ,,ery, rie&y few for incarcera*ed i.ndividuala who heve eucces*fur;, -;;; givea medical paroJ.e So that i"s,Wet fx ln *re hi1l. .*nd f want ir to be 01-2fr-m218:4IAM ceuroet{lA sI&?E S&N&?E, 6*11 _So &ryu$tsf.gmo : i rHE CHArR: fimnk rou, Senaror skirser.n J Smator t_feldndez. n! ; j *.,,:T::,'EL&&EE: fha'k you very much. rlds is nor ae f nonur.arity conte*t - $o lsg r ' r':LB t t I " __,.LerirL- irfi Jet,B talk aboUt Wh;r j ,tbu bitr- *rie kr.j", allar*s , ""*t 1s a*tually in a f **o****^* r. , * Judse to prtryidn uilinrired : I l:r-rer frr aay n:iadean**o, ,urJr, ,,r" .__r"*;.:f:;3 | offeases, do*rresLif vlolerce apd etalking. It doee allaw fors i di.r*r:.i *i *-'. , , :: J:iversi*n fcr thw* srl:n'c$r'nir chird ;- 'L L{uqs rtryr rt r.1 ! rrate crimee, brj.r:$ing. a,fl: , r*ho have a ILri, rz I assautr. , qr-r^*- . - :earm into a legialative office, i ' 'uElrLrEY Enef t - wral.ri nr.t - ; J *m*Tr;fr.ffiTHxtitrr.:r?**1a { gnounds, all e}.igtb'e for a atv"rui;. ; -t'ri.,.,r'- ln' o&J I cu erairyt. fha sounde }ike a15 | real nJce buncir, Sceenrt iE? rrr I i ^*^-T-,:.* tt:tculoue ' Everv time r're have a bir-l rhs,rtr { *omea rry rlke tar.*,,,it' j* *.de ou; ;. ;.;'- at" *r. Enst r , r*{re {&tu to be t&,at, 0h, it ia jusl18 j these low levei affenders, Ehat,s rhe ;' r€1.9 f to r-H.. n^h--!- rf you listened :: i :: *. cownenrs of rhe previcus "*;;:"r, *rTlri:rrf--20 I lierened to Lhem, yaer r.rould rr*u, irr" ;; "_ ;;;-;;;; *:1 i caused. ?hig is uo inapprop"i*au. :: i .,__-:o rr-::_:*:n* uith reepect Lo rhe elderry parole :. i :"*"* -- partlcurarry egresioua, or-r**,..:-:*"'*, *arole :: I .ffi:" ::".:::. e';..; ;;;;.;ffi. :;-,:ffil.' :: J criuea, eo chqp arre sq.cal:.es *onuio:,;;"-:u Lr*rsil"ins 26 i*: *::ready ,.'-;";;-expedlred parole [ff". ilT: 01-CF?0E1 &;4?Afi4 I 1 I : C&IIFOR}IIA STATE SENATE. &.31-20 t ? 3 4 5 6 7 I I 10 x1 12 1: L4 l"s Lb 1? 1A i"s 2& 31 22 t4 25 db ?ray, undrx Prop. $? a$d Three Slrikee inmatea g6 yolr arc gaiag,:go $*ve the.ieeult cf rsd*ced for crimes ]"ike m$rder, kidnappirsr r&F€, &r1d forth" ?hj"s is -: God help ue, y*u know" if billr like thia" Because -- and by Ehe way, &&ris{31, P*B* Pcp 11 are ffrerilted, eenLeacinge gs 0n a:td so $e co&tinue r*itk I don'f think rca Angeles shourfr rearly be held up a$ rhe ritmus t,est or be:rch*arh f*r hoe; things ahould he.f,one prcperr.y given ,*har'a going os there. So I r*holehearL.edly ask for your no vote. thank you. TIq CHATRT fliank you. , Senator BorEEas. S&tBfOB BOR*.F-S]I, I{xr trying ra underatand the title cf tb'ie, Elderly parale progrram, trhere the age vae 60 and hae---. now been reduced d$*& ro 50. so r+hat occurred to me is it Beer&s Like there ,ia a dual purp*se t* the leEi*lati*n" one, it cerrainly hae a social criminal justice reform element to it. But the seclnd, was the Elderly parole program a way for the suate ro nor lfr*"* Lo shoulder the medical coete I aasociated nith islns irunat.ee? And rm wmrderi-ug if that haet-.{a signlficant c}or dr'gs fxnm drliri*g a r*j'ricle' '{ rial68's, ,}r 9&rs prer}Jb&i,,/r- genereliy, is panisfta&le *s e ,.r,a$der}}e&nor* &rf**fi:g l*:v au#rrrr:es * c*ilrf fs gfipr nrisderne*n*r diverci** f*. crirnj**! defrk*dant* x&rc&. ro.nfin$r*$r cn ffi.tr's,ffifff: *f speciffed teftns and c*xdtttons irnposed *v rr?e revrr* r*suffs in r&* drsff,s$$/ *fciraqges ?*is b'iJ wa*fd plac* req*l''em*rils o$ r,,i*der*e* nor div*rsi*n &r perso*s e*arg*d wiflr drtrrag {r*der f&einflu*n** *f alr*&*f and dfirrg5 {*NI}, ae sperlffed. ??w bilrrvar*fd lria*} Jo**l*n t., srr$er}s rryl,* baye fis sdsrco,tvtctians rar *tlt, e*d rc4o ftar€ n,*r cer$pJer€d di;*;;; ;;;;'ffi; r&e p*$r tfi years. ?i* sii, nai..J# ''equit"r' e$ # c6'ldif'*,' t:{ dite'-sian" far fire #ofeflder}f fo Jr:fa# arr ;rurl*;c* ir:ferlce.k devir*. 6s sperrtrfd *$# rsp6rfl'#g*i* rrl ed$rstsi? a*d c*uns*ding pregrar*sr as specfffe#. x::.*o rld$#Jd resstrf t** de$s.fj??e$f r{} infLJd€ s/rrrtrsd arr*ss ,,1 jts frsc&fr?# al $,N*ryesr ss?d c$nv/cr/4rl rnis &ffl *ov't'f ais* rerluira e rriede#*n rer st$ t**f is #r$,,#$sed pursuanf a{, rtis d&"*trrs.? Frr}girdff r} ($sJ$f a$ d'Prjor r*nufcfj*n r*r 6urs*ses *f su&s*gu*nr *rulvtttiu,t'ts far $riving #$der. tho i$s{,rff..e, ss .str}€{rfi*d" fitip*:f:'teg{nf*.legis{*trrr*"ca,&*t{ss*s,&iilyext*1ics}t.xh!rnl?hi,} fd*!*ZIZ*f}$$*4:1 SttJQ{}P1 i}l rexg * s$'421 il*fuirle*: *rivi*g und*r l** i*lluenes rf *ie*;,*} {ri?d drugu. ) *xtstlfrg law' un*?Jan*ary 'I" *s3s" r*qair*s d #sts#a?. {,{Fr3r? r *ri*tirsx! ***virtl*n {ttr i}iJZ wif& x pd*rr**rjrlinmi ro" *L!{ *r f*r drtxi,sg u*d*r l&e /rlsu,*rrce and ra*sir:g rrr.*ry, fd} $isfd# 5$d r*;lir:{ain #il i$ni$,?r} inferlcc& dEyre*', flF! f$r e W*r;ft*d p*$*d of #ffi*. S.vas#srt law als* *k#}$rj{es & c*#{t, up*t, tlte f;ixt t#t.t$",ai te{rvtt$$}t? *{ Ii' pe{6r}* f*rdn';ing t/&derf}* frtf{ssxttr*, f* *dx.o tfuepers.Q*t"o fnsf*J? and *yxit*ain a* If* {*ra spe$,{i{rd #*{t{}$ *f, 'iff;i!r';;yr:-:* *.,es *trt ord*r rhs ,ks*s],*tien or sa$'t 3 devi**o a.i€&*rix*$ rrrr per.ss' kt appty {ar a I}j$ &i/i wn*ld /**fEad r*q$ire e psrs$fir r*gon f&x p*,xr*k fir:rf rriirr',innf *a{.,*ct!t}* for *{_lfr rc ,n$fr}rf *rrdrya*laix *tt Ilff far a sge*fi*d p*ri*d of *i&,s, ftt€ bllt w**t$ d*r*t* trz*,q*prsdsio$s aut?1*riz,figa r*sfrrxfcdlite*xe i* liex *f xtt.ffS f$r $rst *f{*xd*rs. rlis &#l rror'r/d gnv* crsdil esxards {** e*urf-erd#u*d fsrm *f ffs rnsl*/}a& *rt f*r *ny peri*tr *f ttttt* e{tsr rh**rrest f&at *ie pgrssrl volunlorify ir:sfdff* afid apgrat€$ am .iffi. ??:& 6tfl w*trld pt&ce speaffi*d re**rd&*epsrg reqclr*rnecfs uy*n nta*xfa*t$rers {7r tl*s. ?}d &lrf w*#ld &ls# sr{.rtrd e.{tend ffne ?*qutr*d rer_,.r, af ffo ,&$ls#s$or, by 6ff **5ts $, ,,rtt*tt7 f,te Sn*f Sff *ays *f,nsf*rlaaiar?, e dt iver ettempfs f{r sf€rf tkf v*ftlcts wftrn ;* sp*cifi*d fefel aF *fra&w I is dst**red. vote: .',ajarrty ApprcBrietion; n* Flscal {ornmttt*e; ys$ Lrcei pr&gram: ro TH& T6#:}Lg fiF T}-{E STATE fi3 CA[.I$(}RNIA *CI ENACTA$ Fff{-L*T*$; St*ff*,* f. Sccli$r: J#SJ.ri rf l&e pen*l f*dr is eryz*nded t* r*ad: 18&{'$s" {x} & Judqe in the sxJ}*ri*r (*u,-t lsr vrhictr a n':rsderneqsror fr being prose(uted rn*y, at t,}* judg*t :::1::X xnd **er the **je{tion sf a Br6$s{t,'tiri* att*n'lEy, offer dJve'^si&.r t* a d*fendant p*rsua*t rs rhe$e {b} & jildge may c**linue e diqert** ras* f*r a p*ri*d n*t lo esceed }4 m}nth$ and crder the defendant ter |[ffj:-:-- terrrr*' eondititft$' &r prs*'"ar"dl lhat ihe j*dg* d*ema 6pprps*st* *e*rd ** the defendant.* ;pecific li::Xi: ff:?lj}X##X#S3jittrffiXj:::u *oo {€,d*}sns. nr r',* end *r rhe Feried *r divemE*n, {d} Ir 't 6$pe6r5 ts tke c'''#8 tiet f*s dafendant ds *of cun*pfy! r:g r^tiL?tthe terrar end ra.,diti*n5 uf diversi*r, *ft*r*otlee ts the defer:da*t" the ccu.t rhall h*ki * h*aring t* determi** whether th* erimrina! proce*dinqs shauld b*relfictitufed. !F the r*$,t finrj$ ttlal tt1e defe{ldant *a* **l cr,ffifrifd w;th lhe lernrr and ccndiij*ns *l div*ryi*n.the csurr ma'r' erd rhe rJrversi*n aner urder r*silff,$tir,fi e{ dfue 6fr*ifi6r *racee*i*gs. !;i_*f,-*-rlt {fiay n*l be *ffsr€{, div*r$lor} Burcuant t$ rhis s**i*n icr ar.iy otr t** f$lf*sr;nq *.}rr*,"tr eh*rged {1} &*y *fferrss fcr wl":irh a p*!-s411, 1f c*rrvicl*-d, woe.rld ke r*q*ir€d ia rq$i€fe. pursffanr tc $*citin }g6" {}},4 vls,,i!t:{}n 0f Se.tiar! ??}"S. {}} A vial*(ion *f suhdjvfsi*;.: {*} rf $ertr*n }43 ix{tpsl,{e$,rnfs.lsSis$a!rr*.ss_ti$y/i*{*$lh:ll1e$fti*nt"rltirnt}hltijd*?&?.ir*?:*SB4A1 2j17 ht{psiii'3**ir1Is"regir15lprs.sa.gsvli6*a*,&ir!?r*ztclierrl.xturmr?bi**[$*f*:1i&xrss842'1 s.(;r,*sl *ff1 ?exl * *&*x.* vstlicie&: drki*S ilfidor ths rfifl*&nd8 *f rksl:ol and dr.*U*" {.*} A vi*f*il*n sl S*cei*r: 64S,3. {5} A vit}lelt&t' in!'*lrln$ d{ivii'tg ,}$d*{ {*e ir:#**mre *f *lr*&o{ drugrs, or l&* rr:rnsi**# rhl}***ru er}eff}" *.rr#gtas provrd*d tn *rsr.diviar*x {e, {f} {1} *fi *r} *rr$tar,r}r tjc*difisr a!ls*i$# * v{*J*ffo* ors*(i'rdr.u ,?3Js} oF at}e irp*rrfs t$d*, th*rsi,rt {?ria ;rfsrr*rsidenrrg l&* p*sl#<*:r *f t/t* $*{s{rs* efld pr*se{t}N!{fft, sr-dr?* $rafnl}/ ctrersion f* a def*nd**r **s##ftr fu r&jssubdivist*x lf f&e deiendei?r r,1s8r$ *fl {if N/,fl re4*rrern*rufs xpgris*# ia ,*ar*gr*p& ffJ. {3} Ftetrialdir*rsl** rn*y 6* Errae*ed pu.rx*a,}f fc *lr?5 -$rr&dir/rsJs$ lf sl/ cf t&* faff*ring e{lt*rfai?re n}€i.. {e} rr'e ds&$s*r}f rixs ii*t #r*rk}rr,Iy &era {sav,rg* * *f **y vi$aatr*r} sf $s*s,"} J,rsr, #5 'sf{J/?ed ,$ .ssr#*,}23103"5, *l_ *r $ecf;ir?.r 2StSZ t:t" ZSLSi a{ ffle b,xilrci* C*.rde_ {8} The r3*krdert i5 rxot tt}rr**r/y e*ru/led r& *$d /,6* nor lri ris F/es;{ril$ is yesr, c&r'glefrd, drverii*tlFir,"s{.,sf}tr r$ fris {*eixer: icj rhe defur#anf c**s fiaf ,?sld a rornnrerrial drlver's ,lf*ff6s. as d*finedifi serrr6$ j52f o of r,rf l;e&rrJ* s*d*' r::rr- ofrerse drd c*f ecr*r 's&i?* cperxlng a rer*mereraf v*hfcl*, as d*ti&*d in $ecrirrr l5!3g *f t&e upfire/e {Sj I** pr*se*uIion d*as flsf ob;ecf to djuer*i*n" {3} ?he r#{'nf n}ay r*r?fffrxJs 3 divrrfed c**e &r a per,r*d ,}sr re *vraes ?4 flrrcfi(*s cr:# order ttte detg$dafit tu ;x5:J* fe$n4 '**dl$s$s" e'- rrssrfa$)s fJ?sl fr?e f,fi{rfr des$}s ap&npnafe &*ssd s& dre deFrr}dar:(3 $psorir mm:"*r af dltrersr*n S,.a$fed pilrs$s$a fo t6is srr&djytsls$ $fis# l*tlude, wtthrltrt rrrrjrrri*& b*tt? 8f the : , I I i , I I 'l , rdi rr''ct*liat'{'e* of a* tg*tti&fi i,rfsrr&€& de'lre. p&.,.r6nf fo secf}or 3J5r5..3 frf th* v*htrle cade" t*r a pe*ud $Fnet iers aJ*il ,3 j??sfirr?$_ es 6rdr,-ed by tfie c*ux" fsl fi', r&r a de/e*dx*l wlz* had 'e$s fhe,* s-2 perrert, &v xrrqr&lo af arcahat r{7 tk$r br**d, paril*ipatian f*r na 'ess ff?*$ lfuree rnn*$lts' a$ ordered &/ rft€ cor,rq & a ,Jc*nseg sr*g'arn r*dr ron$frfg sf *f ts;sr .r* ,ru.rr{s srsftlgn?ff' S*(i*iriss" i.,rfa,.*fl$ fy'?$s€ educafrsn, *ftup caunse$ng, and irrdlvtdaral ir?feryiew ssEsirus ttsscrib*'s inchap*er I fc*rnrneac?ng ndf} $*cficn ,JS3$j oir*rt a of 6tvr#rn is.S af fir* I{e*Iffi a*d $rfuf {*de. firj fror * defsnda'.,t ry&c lted s 2 s6e,*et,f sr fosre. &r weisl,l of dfgsfie, in r&eir *rsed, qr ytkorer$$*d r* '*tl.$$ tq x r&erniraf feei psrt'c'pe&c,' for no Jess flao cr*s rno*i&s" as crdrM &y tfr* cx,.Jrq. r* a i?recsedprcgr**l {fixtc#r!.s/.sts sF €f ie*st 6S A*lurp 8F pt',gfam a€:tlvl$sst fr?(rrrdin$r f*rfs *d#fatjc*, *fi:ffp c*rnsell*gro a#d ,rldryld$e, rfixxJffir#;t'**o in (fiapfer s {corar,}en(}}1s nff& S**fic n tt&36) *f Ferr "? rf mriia* r$.5 sF #?s ffi :"trffffi:ulTJffiJfffi:ritjT:ffi.f-s ard randiri*ns. ee $'* end *{ /}'re p***d *r d,r*rsron {6} Jf rt app*ar$ {s $is ri:u:'f f}st tr&# dsfs,da$a f* nat c**.rplyi*y wi{& t&*. ferras end c*,,dit*.o*E of sdarsmloa, ag*rnlti{# rs f*e defiP$d*itt' f*e rourf s*al, field e &*arngr rs deferrxin* w*c#r*r t&e crrsn*r*l pr*ceedings s*orfd &*.eitr$r''tured' r l$e ftx.rrr s$ds r&er r*e d*re*d*nr frr; ,r;;;;;; ;;;;- rerr.?_s a,,rj cardlfrnns *r direr*Junu#!s 'offre '''sr Srld rt* div*r€iafi afid $fds. r€ssnr,frs,, sF$ig (fr$,r*al profee#i*rr5. SsC. f" Sertris,? J&J? pf #re V*!"sirl* Csde f$ *r**$d#d ts rxs.d". l8ac" 1}l*, L*glgtalure findc th*l dr'\'ln* uft,Jer i{,* l*fl*e*cs af arcoh*i *r druss tqnt{ei$es r* be e pri,,,*ry $if.etyi$5te sn the s(ei{'s h$*hwavs' and the maj$r {al,sc ef traffir death$, ,}t {* ifi$ere{iu* c,1Al ViStAtSrS rvtrlo $ri,/elAihil* !*nder d.le tnfluenc* cf atrerhsl er urugs be fi.:[ly r.*s*cut€d **oer th* Iai,r, The LeErx{*rura f,rso **ndc $i;!ttc* af'*n vistetsrs hxve n*t h*d the{r driving rec*rd$ 6i rh8 *6Frrln}enr *i ro***n v*ha*}e$ eppr*priete}y *pdated.Th*ref*r*, ii i* th* i*tent of the L*gisfet*re ,l**t tt*u departm6n3, x*rk.lnq |1,itr1 ttrle c*urts3 e$tebgish *nd rrraint*ina da'a and rfiotlit*ring sy$t{ft 16 trsrk "tola}i&i:s *f drfvl*g unrr*r rl'le r*riu*rr* cf srr*h*r or drrrgr, inqrudins, bq"rL&0t lufiiled {*' vi*!filisns *f Ar{i{18 1'} {rsm$xefi(ins wr*: $ectisn 1}x3€}. &rtie,e 3"$ {esmrnsfi(r&s ,!fth seftis&A3t4*:" s,ld &rti{l* 2 {c**rmencinq with $ecticrx 3.3t52}_ cf fhapter :* of *,yisiar, 11. Th* systa$ sh*ll rnalcharr*slg fmr dr*victg r;nder t!"r'u iRfl*erree *i ale*hnl *r drug rofe!*ticns liiirh {*irrifiifr*.1* rep*rted i* rhe dsp*rr&*fit, fiff*lz*?I *'?l r*x{-&*4[1v*ktr]4 ".4tr€ing**d*r&un*u**re*f xte**atrarzdz]xrg*. ' rx-:-" s*alt ittrf*d* ri*rg*s tsl&t 4f8 disrlli$*sd p*{eu;'.t{t tts subdiviei*nffJ *l$*ctr*r 3**1.*5 *{ th* {:**xl If3;i;ff{![fii33#$ *t tk* v*tti*t* c*d*, as adtte* &t1 ss*j*rr.16 *r rlraprer 4fie *rN&s .sr6r#re, *r.usr4 ig $33ee"(ai{?}?tttdeparts*eilt:*hallr*rtify$rcai}$rrt{?br:*ertlili*#isnlli*nin{er{il{k devtt*sr*queredE:y&rticies{{$ffitfie*{'ns ta'-}*t s*ctien k3fi??'t *f ch*pt€r r. or $iv,6!$ft 11,} *r"ru pubtish e li:t *f ap::r*u*d d{viras" {?} {A} Ttre deparl*rent st*ll e6}su.4 th&t iqrr?hur iriterl*{k devi*er thet haue }:*en c*$ffl*c adc*rdi,-1q t* khgre$**r**qnL* s{ thi$ $€ttisn cs&llfitle t* rrue*L r*rt}fiffi$*n r*q*irem*ntr. th* d**artr*e nt ,n&y rer}*d,fall}.re{rl'rq $"!sn{'rfamu'*?-s trs tn*ltatw lo \slr*r'16 x'lh*ther lhs dev{r:er ffrr:trr:*e l} ry€el cBrtifir*ti*fi req(r}reffi*fit5, {B} ?he departm*nf &aY $5* *e*r*l of c*rtafi{atis*. su$F*r}$isn 8r revrst*tt*rz *f eertif1cntl*,.}. a:r de [as of July 6,20211') Even if the Governor's understanding was that diversion could be granted for driving under the influence cases under the bill he signed, we agree with petitioner the statement does not shed light on whether the Legislature intended to allow diversion in driving under the influence cases. (see Moore v. superior court, supra,58 Cal.App.5th at p. 582, fn. 12; see also Coastside Fishing Club v. Califurnia Resources Agency (2008) 158 Cal.App'4th 1183, 1196, fn. 7 [..We do not think a Governor's post hoc signing statement is ordinarily a reliable indication of legislative intent"].) Likewise, we find the fact that a bill is currently pending in the Legislature barring courts from granting diversion in driving under the influence cases (Assem. Bill No' 282 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) does not reflect on what the Legislature intended in 2020 when it approved legislation failing to speci$ one way or another whether diversion could be granted in these types of cases. (See Assembly Bill No. 282 (20212022 Reg' Sess') As noted in a legislative committee analysis for the bill, the Legislature was told new legislation was needed to ..clariff,, whether diversion was allowed in these cases, and to "correct [an] ambiguity in the court initiated misdemeanor diversion statute enacted by AB 3234 - whether a misdemeanor DUI offense is eligible for court initiated diversion." (Assem. Comm. on Public Saf', Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 282 (2021-2022F(eg. Sess.) as introduced January 21,2021, pp' 4-5') In sum, the Legislature approved a bill in enacting section 1001.95 which was silent on whether misdemeanor diversion can be granted in driving under the influence cases' Against this backdrop, Vehicle Code section 23640, subdivision (a), in crystal clear language' bars diversion in such cases. We cannot discern an intent to overcome the rule that "[t]he law shuns repeal by implica tion" (Schelb v. Stein, supra,190 Cal.App.4th atp' 1 a8)' We therefore give effect to both statutes, by finding a person is eligible to be considered for a grant of diversion in all cases, exceptthe ones specifically listed in section 1001.95, subdivision (e) (cases where a person must register as a sex offender, domestic violence, and stalking), and driving under the influence cases as provided in Vehicle Code section 23640, subdivision (a)' DISPOSITION Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue in the first instance directing respondent to vacate its April 6,202t order granting diversion, and enter a new order denying diversion' Ricciardulli, J. We concur: Kumar, Acting P. J. Richardson, J. Exhibit J 52 xhibit SUFEBIOR COURT OF C.ALIFORNIA, COUHTY OF R'VEREIDE FC1R COUFT TSE Otr,t y PlaintifflPetitioner tr* F% 4,*{*r ra3 FsJ K Rivrside Sup*rior Caurl APftt21000CIs Peopl* sf the $tate of California DOCUMEHT CSVER$HEET Full Sccument Titfa: Per Curiam Opinion (ff the dacu,nent is not officiali {itre{ p6es;iw;;j;the de;;&6;;il,i;i"ii-i)ieiig iied.l Other File Cter.k Natee: RirBGide Suoe.i6r f4uri MCnr3lRor. il4,,131 F*Lffiffi*t-8r$^ffi##** cEsrls{mq rq..R ru*.rrEATrqx JUL ? 7 fn?l SUPERIOR. COURT OF THE STATT OT CALIFORNIA COUNTY OT RIVTRSIDE APPIILI,ATE DIVISTON THH PSOTLE OT TIIE STATE OT CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. $ITPERION COTIRT Or RIYERSIDE C$UNTY. Respandent, SUB,{S"IAN ANDRSS DIA-Z" ARM$TRONG, Real Party in Interest" THU PHOPLI OF TIIE STATf, Or CALIFORNIA, Petiticner, v. SUPTR"T(}R COURT OT RIYERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent, -IO$trPH SA.MUC[, SPIf{ELL|, JR., APRISl0*008 (Trial Cl No. INM20034t0) ApRr210{}0$9 (Trial Ct. No" INM2002IBl) Real Party in Interest. THE PEOI'Lfl OF THE STATE OF CATIFORNIA. Petitioner, v. STTPERION COUR'I' Or RTVARSINA COUNTY, JtrssICA oRTIz, ResPondent' Real Party in Interest. ORIOINAL PROCEEDINCS in Petitiens denisd" APRIzIOOOI3 (Trial Ct. No. INM20036.59] mandate and prohibition. Dean Eenjamini. .tudge. Michael A' I{estrin, District Attcrney, and Chrjs S. Bouffard. Senior Deputy l}istricr Att*nrey, for Petitioner. Na appearance for Respeindent. Stet'en L' Hannoq Public Defender, and Jason M. Cox, Deputy public Defendeq lirr l1eal Pamies in Interest" TIIX COUR - with the pafiies' consent at oral argument we consolidated these &ree r.lrit proceedings lirr hearing and decision because. even though they involve diffbrenti urtrcoRnected criminal defbndants. "they invnlve common and interrelated issues of fact and larv.., ({n re Carl H. t?*ll1 ? Cal"App.Sth 1022, fn. l; see people y. W,illiams (199?) 5f Cal.App.4th I?0?; peapk v. Sandtez (1q87, 190 Cal"App.3d 224, 228; people v. Superiar Courr (Kenner) (1g?7t 73 Cal.App.3d 65, 67*68') Indeed, they present the identical issue of larv, one which surely arises daily in *ther SYKES. P. J.; STERI-INC, J. courts thrn*ghout our state: are defhndants charged r.r,ith misdemeangr driving untler the influence tnUD statutorily eligibl* ftrr pretrial diversian under Penal Cade s*gi$n lOtll.Qj? We holql thar such defendants are indeed so eligitrle. anil deny the Fei:ple 's petitions lbr extrar:rdinary reliel. PROCENURAT BACKGROUND INMSA{fi 4 t $ I Apx{z I $00t}s Defendant antl real pa*y in interest Diaz-Arnstro&g rvas *harged hy mi*riem*rn6r cornplaint with DUI (veh. cr:cle, $ 33152, suhds. (a), (t)), was arraigned, and plea6ed not guilry. At a trrr*trial hearing on January u,2a21,the trjal court placed defendant on dir.ersion pufiiuanr ro Penal Codesectiotr lOCIl.g5 (her*inallero'segtisln lOCIl.95")overtheprosecutor'sobjccii*n. With regard to the threshold questirin of eligibility the trial cCIurt inqorparated hy refcrence the arsument$ and ruling it had made earlier that day in INM2002I I I , w.hich n e discuss ia:mediately helow' Ths trial court additir:nally ftrund defundant to tre otherwise suitable for diversior based ofl tll* perticular cireurnstances of the case. On Februaryr 17, 3021, the People filed a petition for writ af liandate or prohibition in this caurt and rve issued an ordertcr shorv causs.l rfrt /t{ 2 0(}3 I I I / A I' &,r2 I 0CI00p Defbudant and real party in int*rest spinelli was also c*nrged by misdemeanor c6mpl*int with DUI' was arraigned. anel pleaeled mt guilty. At a pretrial hearing on January ?1, 2021. the trial c*urt plactsd defendant on secticn 1CI01.95 clarify that the diversion statute should curt {}(}30} 5S C*l"App.sth 561,57q. My revier.v af these priar cases leads me to lind that unless a diversi*n stalute st,rtes *the:'rvise, section 23640 still operates a har ter diversion for Dtjl offenses. Fnr instance, *tnsidcr tlre language in seetion 10CI1.36 as irlentified by I'ellez and lulo*re" sr{rr?! which were hcth jurt decided in late 3St0. ln reviewing those statutes together, I can find no substantive diftbrenr:es lbr me tr: conclude that section 1001.95 shculd be treated rlifl'erently fi*m sectic,n 10fi1.36. Both sections provide the trial court u,ith the power to grant diversion under certain *ircunstanr:*s. Botlr *ecti*ns indi*ate thnt certain enumerated offenses are categoricnlly ineligible fnr div*rsi*n. And. m$$t imp${antly* neitirer secticn references in any way DL'Is, $ectiCIn 2364$ ar l*nguage that intlicates that th* exceptions are exclusive.s In my opinion, thme is ns reason why 7i"//c and lk!o*r"e dc not dictate a finding that DUIs are catcgorically prohibited uniler seeti*n 1001.95.( 5 The cnly slight difl"erence betwecn the two statutes are that section I001 .36 applies to both fclanies and misdenreanorq and sectian I 001 .1)5 only to misdemeanors. Howeveru as *tated &brlvts* I do not find *ny reler.anee in such a distinction. Ii-the Legislature finds that misdemeanors and tblonie* should be freated differently, that it their prerogative to do so.6 Although it i* perhaps tlit:ta, the delbndant in &{oore, supr$, speeitiellly argue.d to the appellate ccurt (hat newly-created section 1001.95 demonstrated that the Legislature intended tn make DUIs eligible for diver*ictn undfr secti*n 1001.36. The Courr was not persueded. Thr: Mctore ccurt held: Moore argues that the Legislature's failure to exclude misdemefi$or DLJI efftrrses fionr the nerv mistlerneanor program ($* I 00 Lq5- I 00 I .97) shows that it intended tr: include thern. t$ 1001..$5^ subd" (e).i Likerviso, he claims that the Legislature's failure t* exclude mist*emeanor and felony DLll CIflenses from eligibility fnr pretrial flrental health diversian {$ 10$1.36, subsl. (bX?)} shorvx that it intentled ta inelude thsrn. Buf x'hether n:is;tl*nream:r DUI *tTenses are eligible ti:r diversicn under new se*tions 1001 .95 to I {X}1.97 is nrrt bet*re us. itnd even if they sre. '? daes n*tfrrlktw that tmisdemearrur *nd{elttnyl l}lil al{ensax are fi eligible for mental health tliversion" under section l0{}1.3fi. (.Tellez, sttpra. 5(t Cal.App.5rh at p. 450. 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 4lS.) For the rea$ons exptained, DUI otfunse* are not eiigible far diversicn under ss$tioft I 00 1 .36. In the end, I weiuld find that it is for the {.egislature to amend section I001.95 if it seeks to include DUls fr:r misdstneanor diversion. As the ccurt held in Mo*ye, supra, when the defbnsq arg*ed that the p*licy of in{-rcasing rliver*ion would brl hest be *erveti if nut defendants whc suffer frrrm qualifying mental health disorrlers are granted ditersion, the appellate court re*ponded. "AlthougJr this m.ay he so, it islor the Legislatare ta strike the proper b*l*nu between prCItecting public satbty and mitigating the entry antl reelttry into the crimi*aljustics sysreffi of individuals *'itl"r m*ntal cli**rders." {58 Cal"App.Sth at p. 581 [ernphasis adr:led].) I would rule the same. IIL Conelu$on Ti:eref*re, hecause I ran find nu textual suppcrt fnr finding that s*ctian 2364|' has heen repealed. nullifierl or ollicnvisc sct asicie, anrJ because precedent h*s analyzed analogous stotut*s and fuund DLiI* are not included in similarly-w*rded rlir.,ersion statute*, I w*uld firrcl ttrrat DIJIs are categorieally ineligibl* f]rr divsrsion under $e$tion i*01.95. 1 n"ould thus grant the Peopk:'s writ" I respectfull], dissent. funphasis atlded].] it {Mcsorr\ suprs.58 C*l.App"sth at p. 5S2 $UFHRIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSINE Hall cf Justice Ruling on Matter $ubmitted (Appellate) a7/27t2fr21 S:30 AM Appeals AFRtz{0$S0g pEoPLE oF THE $TATE oF CALIF0RNIA vs River*id* $uperior court Honarable Sunshine $ykes, Judg* Honorable Otis $terling 1ll, Judge Honorable Chad Firetag, Judge L. Cnncepcian, Courtroom Assistant Court Reporter: None APFEAXAHCE$: No Appearances Court subsequenily rules on matter taken under submission an:8511412021 fcr Hoaring on Appeal. The petitians ars denied. Notice to be g*ven by Clerk tc District Attorney , Rruf RSlDf $UFERIOR COURT, Pubtic Defender. PageloflPages Nutice f,* U**n printed fcr the lbtlowing FirsrrlAttorney$ or Pnrties: AP'RI? I {i0{}t}S A*orney, Oistrict 3S6O ORAhI$T $TX,EET RIVERSIDH- CA 9:5fiI RIVHRSIDE SUPERIOR COURT 46?0S OA,STS ST indie, CA 933{}} Seftnder, Public 82-995 HWY}l l, STr" ?00 lNntro, cA *22t)1 P*ge 4 *f4 P*ges EXHIBIT K 53 HI I - at NCJRS.gov. er?-ed-/ / , -/-?(sfttF 0F cAt,F0nxu --EE=r.---,: 6ffrc#g1ffiPryr.ffEEF $gp*nf*Etn oF tofo| yttttctti $ AN EVALUATION OF TITE CATIFORNIA OMIJNK SRIVING GOU NTERfuI EASU NE SYSTEMfi e s w \q* \h F tinfl Aulhon Eaymond C. peck . Reresrch and Development Section AN OVERVIHW OF $TUT}Y FINDING$ AroD P@LICV IN#PTICATIONS 1119 60 U.S, DsprIlment of J0silc€ Natlonal lnetltul€ of Justicg This documont tas hsen reproduced exaclly as rsceived from theperson or organization originaling it. points oiview or opinions staiaa rn tnrs Oocument are lhose Ot the aulhors and dO ndt necessaritv repressni rhe olflcial position or poticios of th6 Nationat i;;lirrt"; Juslice. Permisslon to rsproduce thfs copyrighted matorial has beengranled by California State Departmentor Motor Vehicles to the National Cririlinal Jusu66 Feference Seruice (NCJFIS). Further.reproduction outslde of the NCJBS system requires permis. slon ol ths copyrighl owner. DECEMBEB 1987 DEPARTMENT OF MQTOR VEHICLES A publlc Servlce Agency cAL-Ditv-BS6-87-112 , ? 3l k ii I ,.1 I t p. $ I ll REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I. REPORT '{O.CAI,-D},fi/-RSS-87-112 tl. T,tlo tnd Subtltl6 An Syal-uation of the System - An Overview CaLi"fornia Drunk of Study Findings Driving Countermeasure and Policy Irnpllcation I Roport Drte September 1987 & Porlot'fllfig Orgrolrstlon R!Fl. No; CAf,-DI4V-RSS-87-112 Z Aulhor(t) Baymond C' Peck 9. ,rcrfofmlng Orjrnlzatlon N.m. .nd Addro$ californja Department of Motor vehi_cles Research and DeveLo;xnent Section' 2415 First Avenue Sacramento, CA 95918 U. Contrrct(C) ar Crrot(c) No. (c, (G' l?. SFonrorlng Orginlz!fl,on Nrm. rnd Addro!. 13. Typo of RGport & pariod Cowrud Final lA Abrlrrct (Llmtt: 20O word3) This relrcrt sunmarizes the resul-ts and poricy imprications of a seven-part studyentitled lunk Drig!.ngllgggtexrreasure System. Thestudy pinpointed ntimerou. a"i concLuded that license susPension is genera].1.y more effective than alcohor reha-bilitation progra&s i-n red,ucing the accident risk of our oiren;;;. The resultssuggest that using both sanctj-ons simultaneously would be superior to elther a1one.An evaluation of pre- and post-1982 rates inaicitea that the tougher sanctions andillegaI pex se BAC statutes (0.'l0t) enacteil in 1gg2 reduced the incidence of alcoholrelated accidents and DUI recidivism. Ns"[Ims 17. Docrrmant An.lirrts a, Dr*rlpiorr traffic safety, Law enforcernent, acci.dent pretrentionr.evaluadiorr, g.overnment 5nlici-es1alcoholiffr, traffic regulations b. ld.ntlficE/Oprn.Endad Tarmt alcohor' drunk d'riving, 1egal deterrence, license revocation, risk managernent, alcoholrehabilitation 19. Sccudty C,!33 ffhlr Raport) UnclassifLed 2O. Sccurlty Ctrsr (Ihk plsc) Unclassified S6a rataruct onr on Foycrlr !. f ;l t. PREFACE This report summarjzes the results of a seven-part study on DUi control which was initiated by the Department of Motor Veh'icles. The final volumes of the study were published recentiy, and the results re'inforced my belief that much more needs to be done to reduce the threat posed by DUI offenders. in addition to prov'id'ing a summary of what each of the study modules found, I asked my research staff to include a poficy overview chapter in whjch the various findings from this and other studies were integrated into a compre- hensive policy prospectus on DUI control. The very nature of a comprehensjve systems analys'is required cons'ideratlon of pol ice enforcement and court adjud'ication e'lements over which DMV has little or no responsibility. 14e beiie're that presentation of a comprehensive array of ideas and counter- measures at this juncture better serves the long-range objective of improved DUI control than would a narrowiy focused set of DMV poiicy recormendations. Not all of the ideas may be perceived as meritorious, and others may prove infeasible. The task at hand is to initiate the process of using the ideas presented here as a starting point in evolving an improved system of DUI control in Californla. A. A. PIERCE Director 3 ACKNOI.ILEDGEMENTS This summary report represents contributions by numerous past and current members of the Research and Deveiopment Section. The authors of the individual volumes are listed in the bibliography section, and the numerous individuals who contributed to each study are acknowledged in the respective report volumes. I would 'life to thank four of my staff for their assistance in preparing and editinq this report: Dr. Mary Janke, Ciifford Helander, Michael Ratz, and Debra Difuntorum. The major typing of the report was done by Fe Arconado- Hignight under the supervision of Seresa Hartwell. The reports sur,marized herein were funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratlon through a grant administered by the Ca]ifor"nia Off ice of Trafflc Safetjr (Grant #088.102). The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in the publications are those of the authors and not necessariiy those of the State of Californla or the National Highuny Traffic Safety Administration. il L I 7i ( r, i L !; ,i t ! t.. I,l 11 t+ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Th is report summarizes the results and po licy 'impi'ications of a seven-part study entitled An Evaluation of the California Drunk Driv'ing Countermeasure System. The study p'inpointed numerous deficiencies in California's DUi control system and concluded that license suspension is generally more effective than alcohol rehabilitation programs 'in reducing the accident risk of DUI offenders. The results suggest that using both sanctions simultaneously would be superior to either alone, An evaluation of pre- and post-'1982 rates jndicated that the tougher sanctlons and il'lega1 per se BAC statutes (0. l0%) enacted in .l982 redr:ced the incidence of alcohol related accidents and DUI recidivism. Key recommendations include enactment of an adm'inistrative per se suspension statute and mandatorjr suspension of both f irst and repeat offenders. The complete set of recqnmendations is surnmarized on the attached table. iij 5 V . >o on-o+n +.r o.C-EP O{- x oq 03 G, oo oo 5LhNhEn ch oo ctI r N o-rt F En ; oI F ON + o n.!..-m - OO > 6-E6.Ldc q E> o +O O ti- c L = + E Nrg o3NOSO+6& b "-P iEC{ - O! o E+@ -O D L 63 L tt; PtOO;p+'I 3 8Es is .i- 3 i !g;; +8. ft.-! -t[5 Bg 3ro !c)b; I€I "8- LD oo* +r-.:: ,a:u oa {8 f =- t3=E; Eif; E: :i ::;i H;i:r *re, HE H; $$3f *rxbB E;: ;E ;: Bbps ;!Tr? 8o; *r ;c --iE oLoE toE i- E8, 6:88 5d:€, s3s Bts grP SreE gE;EEi [p€ ]. ooE osrD +fr;f i!= tf !;t tr;: -ei6Fig l6e €E 5bb HtsI EE.:!f H ?te E& [=3 BBtl f EseO c- O o - - F - = Ai [:'r o66-o &5'= tr: za- o_ooL 3E;: -Nnsh6 ELP8-P30 =O(,raC-E.O+Oo>r.o Q- I O : L6gl o >c L o aL -- E O OocioOoO++C o +- 1l! O; o oOUL!o)Eca E a- ht 8-9 " ' 6P 5t hET E bE ;A bTE s tt 5'8 60-X .o oo o; EeUFJq(J-JO -. L oBI o c59+E6- : ,i o,€ " b9q+c+6I s 38. jP -.+ooLqt H p; $_rL O Ot aE - +. dLb E €; E8;:' E o -rtt r EP3 *t9al-CO++> I -) 6 0U.E ; r€: SEE .a I I II I I ,.t I I I I c o +o GLo-bt !oDOEOPLoi,DE+s I &e EP Nn{ I Br IL--L+.coo - AoE3 ES€ CO .L O +5 oulo a o o cot! L o -=lE o o+< lCco=(Jlc - ! o'+oLo c \u+o +, FoE :o6toJ;Lro o69OL -oEO9!+Co$$Oa6Cc -LO;-ooo.E+. l. t .r +>l- 6ol! ozlo LutO L El f " -l o{LIul+ colE o\to:El- +ulo oJl- OoII +ot$ odtf!Ll 6'E$ -o L {, O*L c @loE@l- OUI{- Loto-olo oEl+ a&l o E'o b -: E UJF dtF z.oo =o c{ oUU oo FI ; tLo q F z.u 5 !J JU t r'I {[$!ooo $ i E=r[i S E 6::SoE : !E!:3c h o f + q s.+ L B- GE ^'-38tr* ; E.$-*. Ei E €Isf!3 5 .tEl3 ; T T,""*OF$t ': ifr ii; iiii iii $iii iiij,:d"ijrid i;li;;ii;iiiiiiiffill iffriil,i,i,il*iiii, a!Et8s II * s!r> atr -E C a -;8 E! iii,lii,iriiiiili;t ririj.i ot 6.! -+ br! Et o' *rEb 'h! lGEs; !s.rtEt 3itE',8 EE8L tS aa- - t- d ia>io inO gi . E ** ii itgfui. liii fli,iiii;liililli* ! c ao rt rrE i alc a dl3 $.: 'G L b+a oaL tlsc+ au6t j 56E E-oatt url&t9r!!'olg r: €Eh >q ET! .3 br t Ea llE $uc - 9o.. hlrS!NT: t dl*t; Sl 8 " " E L _6 Elr et8tlf .:: E d g i8t; -o EEvO.E fr B E H J E *e i ; q -9 E t $; El i : i;e Sl E i €s* EI $ $ !EgEr $;i ct_ oop h = j ol uf= s#i=i i*,f, EriiirEiFiiii!l f$gEriii;g;!i :riri I s. Eur$ et aI€ $i-r !e€ #It EIIg :h$. EE; 8b =r ia, t5i: ti; ;:r i;; ;Eri Ei{ ;Ei -+quuo .b eTE! L6l o. +;-9-Pgl $H :ri$f EI EE TTIEi El$aIi[i;r El' ad a)o trzG8 o E5 :o+5eo>vo .ff =gee F I q Fzu2 3u +o 8l Et8I gEfi "El !!* j vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE 1 't1ACKNOI,ILEDGEI,IENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. I NTRODUCTION aaa a.aaaaaaaaaaa 't11 I VOLUME 1 VOLUME 2 VOLUME 3 V0LUfvlE 5 VOLUME 6 VOLUME 8 VOLUME 4 . aaaa aa.aaaaa a..a.a aaaaaaaaa. 3 7 'H 18 22 26 29 POLiCY ANALYSIS A}ID RECOMMTNDATIONS. BIBLIOGRAPHY 31 54 PAGE 38 5t LIST OT IABLES NUMBER l. National Selected 2" E'Iements Commission Against Drunk Driv.inq DUI Countermeasures November 'l0l of an Improved DUI Control Systenr Checklist of.l986 laaa.a LIST OF FIGURES 5 6 t. ?. 3. Pre-AB 54.l DUI System F'low Post-AB 541 DUI System Flow Four-year accident rates for the three study groups by category of acc.ident vii l0 1 LIST 0F FIGURES (Continued) NUI{BER 4. Two-point convictions for participants, nonparticlpants,and match counties by foilbw_up year. 5' Adjusted-{ajqr convictions for suspended and restrictedsecond offenders by gender. ..., . . . . . 6. Adjusted total acc'idents for suspended and restrictedsecond offenders by 6-month ti,i6-pe;iooi.-.':'. . . . . . . 7. Adjustea totar-accidents for five frrst offendergroups by two 6-nunth tirre periojr.'.-; ;'.-.'-: . . . r . . . . Adjusted major convictions by five first offender groups. . . 99d:,9t,: :11?r"gpn! accident occurring before and afterAB. s4t by DUr offender status. irvljuXtii'i'v.Iil-subsequent to entry conviction aite.t . -.-. .":-. 0dds of a subsequent_alcohol accident occurrinq beforeand after AB s4t by DUr offendei itiiril--ili;ir;il' ;3ear subsequent to entry convicti6n-JJt".t. PAGE 10 l4 15 B. 9a. 9b. .l0. 11. 15 l6 9c' 0dds of a subsequent-major conviction occu*ing beforeand after AB 541 by DUI-offender stitui.--iivatuatea tj,ear subsequent to entry convicti;n-dt;,):-:-. . . . . . Total accidents for. suspension-reinstated and suspension-set-aside subjects by 6-nonth foijow-uF perioU.-:-: . . . Two-point convict.ions for suspension_reinstated set-aside subjects by 6-rnonth' follow_up period. 12. lrgnortional flow statist.ics for the lg8lllggz DUI arrest samples. . .-. :-.'.-:- Potential I'effect" channels of an increased sanctlon program. Object_ive of Ca'l ifornia enforcement/driver controlprocessasasystem. . . . . i . . . . A risk management modej of driver control Tree diagram of current DUI sanctions . . . . ., . ., conceptual f'low diagram of the post-conviction DUI and suspension- 16 17 17 21 21 25 32 13. .l4. .l5. ,l6. 17. 35 36 42 process t1/1/Atl. v]1'r lo INTRODUCTION In l9B0 the Department of Motor Vehic'les received a grant from the Ca1ifornia Office of Traffic Safety (0TS) to conduct a large scale evaluation of california's DUI control system. The grant, entiiled An Evaluation of thg , actua l ly enta .i l ed e .ight re]atively independent study modules. The reports produced from th.is effort are listed below: Volume l: Analysis of DUi procqqsing from Amest Throuqh post-Conviction countermeasures. This modu'le was concerned with analyzing the total DUI countermeasure system in california in order to identify gaps and to recommend remedial steps to close those gaps. hrith the ass.istance of an interorganizational task force, f'low charts were constructed of the DUI process frol point of arrest through adjudication, treatnent and Department of Motor Vehicles action. Volume 2: The Long-Term Traffjc Safety i t of a Pilot Alcohol Abuse Treqlmrgnt. as a]l Alternat'ive to LicegJgspgnsion. This module consisted of a follow-up eva'luation of the long-term (4 1/2 yearl traffic safety impact of the drunk driver diversion program originally established in ]975 by sB 330 (Gregorio). The study sample cons'isted of subjects used in the original four county demonstration project authorized by SB 330. Volume 3: Evaluation of the ific Deterrent Effects of Alternative . Th.is module short-term effects of post-AB 54r license control and arcohol actions on first and repeat offenders. In contrast to Module uti'lized a large statewide probability sample and included an first offender programs. Volume 4: An Evaluation of the pro . This mociule addressed the implied consent system for drivers who refuse the chemical test; more specificaliy, the study described the impl ied consent system, identif ied pi"ob'lems .in this evaluated the rehabil'itation 2, this study evaluation of tt sJ'stem and modes of circumvention, evaluated implied consent suspension, and proposed system the deterrent effect of the changes. Volume 5: The-California DUI Counte[measure System: An Evaluation of Svstem Proc3ss'ing and Deficiencies. The objectives of this module were twofold:(l) to provide'enrpirica'l data on the volumes and time frames associated with the DUI System f1ow, as ideritified in Module i, and (?) to identify and provide empirical data on system deficiencies which allow DUI offenders to avoid timely processing or circumvent system countermeasures. Volume 6: An Evalu.ation of the.Impact of a Warning Letter fon F.irst Time DUI 0ffendefs. The objective of this module was to develop and exper.imentally evaluate the impact of warning letters and educat'ional materials suitable for first DUI offendev"s. These materials 'included information on lega1, soc.ia1, and b'iochemica'l aspects of alcohol use. Volume 7: This modu'le was to be an ana'lysis of the total DUI countermeasure system in terms of process efficiency theory and optjmum resource allocatjon principles. it was not implonented due to funding l.imitat.ions. Vo lurne 8: Devel and Evaluation of a Risk Assessment Stra for Medically Impaired Drivers. This module developed and evaluated a for assessing the traffic safety r.isk of drivers who have possible and/or mental conditions, lncluding aicohol problems. strategy phys ica'l By agreement with the funding agency (0TS), Module 7 was deleted as a requiretnent of the grant. Instead, it was agreed ihat the Department would subsequently publish a report presenting an overv'iew of each module and assessing the project's policy implications on DUI control and countermeasure deveiopment in California. The present report represents that effort and object ive. The following paqes present a bn'ief summary of the findings and conclusions of each module, and the final chapter presents a detailed analysis of the policy imp'lications for DUI control in California. A number of recommenda- tions are offered for improvements in both the DUI control process and countermeasure structure. VOLUME I: ANALYSIS OF DUI PROCESSING FROM ARREST THROUGH POST-CONViCTION COUNTERMEASURES This study focused on describing California's dnunk drjver control system, It is specifically concerned with describing and analyzing all aspects of the system for process'ing motorists involved'in driving under the.influence of alcohol (DUI), from the point of arrest through the charging, convicting, sentencing, and treating, to the d'isposition-recording and action by the Department of Motor Vehic'les (DMV). The specif ic object'ives were: To deveiop process flow charts for the whole DUI system, depicting all elements and decision points concerning drivers, abstracts, and license actions involved in the reporting systen, both before and after new legislation (AB 54.|) becarne effective on January 1, l9g2. To describe the whole DUi system frmr the point of amest to the dr.iver record file, both before and after AB S4l (reporting both successfuj participation in drinking driver programs and failure, as well as the associated 'imposition or "staying" of the mandated 'licens.ing action for repeat DUI offenders). t. ?. 3. To 'identify areas or sources of vention of specified provisions, system inefficiency or modes of circum_ espec'ia11y 'in the post-AB 541 system. 4. To develop alternate solut'ions and assoc'iated recommendations. An 'interorgan'izational task force was formed to accomplish these obJectives; it represented all major constituencies in the DUI countermeasure system: law enforcement agencies; prosecutors; munic.ipal, superior, and juvenile courts; orogram/serv'ice providers; state and county alcohol program adm.inis- trators; probatjon officers; and the Department of Motor Vehicles. \? since major new DUI legis]atr'on (especially Rg s4r and AB 7) became effective in January 1982 just as this task force became operational, it was necessary to descrlbe and analyze the older system as wel I as the new. The main caveat result'ing frmr the experlence of th.is task force .is: ,,There is no such thlng as lhe DUI countermeasure system, since it differs across both time and space.'r The official system changes over time as new ]aws are passed and become effective. But even within any given set of laws at any given time, the differences in DUI processing throughout the state are such that no sinqle, comprehensive description is possible u*rich w1ll accurately portray the actual nuances of Ffocessing in every 1oca1ity. Thus, the resultant flow charts and namatlve desqriptions in this report can only represent an approximation of the operational system for. DUI processing before l9B2 and after January 1, l9g2. The resultant flow charts are shown in Figures 1 and Z, and add'itional process fiow analyses are pt"esented in the final chapter of this report. trt I brrgilff r*usliow ffi FIGURE 1. PRE.AB 541 DUI SYSTEM FLOIV 6 I“ .. . . m.-:_-....‘u.m.....‘w.m,,fi.. J“. . . w. m lawn m m men. 3° -. M Anon.“ W m" m - - vu Mo no m mW nuuuu m aw mmm E MAM" u" m NO g E mum '3 mm“. m l m g n" 0' MIA com g g mm... “m m W g m V _ O E E V“ moon- num v- -- WW“ W mun 9%,}; m m m1 ~° '0 fig,“- ulr m m m ._{ 8 m- “° gm.“ N0 m A m mm %‘v‘ 1 vu m In m m mm mm tum ”oW malatngon W' W MI. MM nom ' m m 5 Jada unguou m 1ms no No . m, w 2-3:: ’ vu [T m VB mm G . - UI W 5 . I l n l ‘ r l \ . i . l . ‘ . | mMm : w m . MW n 2m m . a gm ” ”m m “m“ “m m" ”m. 4 . 4m m m mmm é YB ./dErBL\ xor---< rBT \' \ nEoEStEO \? Yls \rc ./ mes\ ft$'"fiiflll"'-19 FIGURE 2. POST-AB 541 DUI SYSTEM FLOW l1 Dmmm mmmmm W“! G . ST- UI O p- m “w m - ”‘- “m ' m m no u:mum com u.m mum- _ AWV mm “aa awnmm mm m mm m" _ w um;mama m1 no m. “<9?“tu-r - m m m ?u'v' Io m man _ __ mm noun "°m m "‘ film. “9'" m ' I I ‘ ' S I \ :mm.” «um w us M" m.gmm ....... Mm umgp ‘ m..." -- .m - mm“ m t ’ m‘\ ’ ‘m I \ I I . I I mm I umV mum m mumu,“ m 11m M nu'. “o m mmMn num unrauu "_° m IF 7 _ . ._.~___ Hm" 0%“ 5:35‘! f m II mm m mmm W n \G Wm ESE <5 WNW \9 VOLUME 2: THE LONG.TERM TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPACT OF A PILOT ALCOHOL ABUSE TREATMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO LICENSE SLISPENSION in 1975, new legislation (SB 330, Gregorio) perm'itted motorists arrested for a repeat DUI offense to participate in a l2-month pilot treatment program in lieu of the usual license action (l2-month suspension or 3-year revocation). in an earlier study, the first-year effect'iveness of the pi'lot SB 330 programs versus license actions was assessed (Haqen, hljJliams, tvlcConnell, & Flem'ing, .1978). This study was a replicat'ion, using the same subjects and a longer (four-year) tot 1ow-up period. The evaluation design involved four demonstration counties and four cunpari- son counties. In the demonstration count'ies, ?,534 repeat DUI offenders entered SB 330 programs, and thus avoided mandatory license actions. The remaining 2,420 offenders 1n the dernonstration counties received license actions. In the conparison counties, 21866 repeat DUI offenders all received I icense actions Using selected traffic accident and conviction variables, the subsequent 4-year driving records of drivers in each of the three groups mentioned above were compared to assess the relative impact of alcohol rehabjlitation and l'icense action on traffic safety. In terms of nonalcohol-re]ated accidents and convictions, the recipients of'license actions did far better than participants in SB 330 programs; the rates for the SB 330 partlc.ipants were about 70?[ higher than for the ]icense-action recipients. The major cause of this difference appears to be reduced driving exposure and more cautious driving on the part of the license-act'ion recipients during the peribd of their suspension or revocation. Among the'license-action recipients, those who received 3-year revocations had fewer subsequent nonalcohol-related accidents and convictions than those who rece'ived l2-month suspensions. Th'is was especial'ly true among subjects under 36 years o1d. The lower rates for the revoked drivers were expected since the nonrecidivat'ing subjects who had received suspensions were eligible for I icense reinstatement 1? months after their DUI conv'ict'ion. However, aithough their rates showed some elevation, the rec'ipients of '12-month suspensions continued to have fewer nonalcohol-related accidents and convictions than the SB 330 part'icipants beyond the period of suspension. This result apoears to be attributable to a low rate of license reinstatement (50i) among the eligib]e subiects w'ith l2-month suspensjons. About four out of five of the eligible subJects wio were not reinstated did not execute the proof of insurance requirement for l'icense relnstatment at any time during the three years following the termination of their suspension. Among those who wene reinstated, about 37il did not have their driv-ing privilege restored for 6 months after the- end of their suspension, dfid z6:t had not been reinstated within 12 rnonths. Thus, for many of the recipients of license suspensions, the incentive for reduced driving exposure and mcre caut.ious driving continued well beyond the initial period of suspension. A different pattern of results was obtajned for alcohol-related acc'idents and convictions. The SB 330 participants uere found to have 91 fewer alcohol- related convictions than the 'license-action recipients. A'lthough smalJ, this difference was iarge enough to consider it unlikely to have occurred by chance. However, pretreatment differences on accidents and convictions sug- gested that the license action reciplents had a greater risk of recidivating at the outset. Although some of this bias uns controlled statistically, it is unljkely that all of it was controlled. Thus, a part of the diffenence on alcohol-related convictions might be attributable not to a posit'ive effect of SB 330 participation relative to l'icense action, but to pnetreatment biases instead No s'ignificant differences were found between SB 330 partic1pants.and iicense-action recipients on alcohol-related accidents. Thusr.the results of the analyses of alcohol-related accidents and convictions, as a whoie, sug- gest that alcohol rehabilitat'ion and license action had essentiaily the same impact on these traffic safety measures. However, neither approach appears to have had a substant'iaf impact on subsequent DUI involvement because over 40% af both the sB 330 participants and the nonpartlcipants received at 'least one subsequent conviction for an alcohol-related traffic violation during the 4-year fo'llow-up period, This finding of a high recidivism rate among repeat DUI offenders is cons'istent with findings from earlier studies (Hagen, 19ll; Hagen, McConne'll, & tdill.jams, .1980). ?i) As for total accidents ( i.e., combined alcohol- and nonalcohol_related accidents), the SB 330 participants were found to have a significant'ly higher (30?[) 4-year rate than the l'icense-action recipients. Thus, in terms of overall traffic safety impact, license action was a more effective counter- measure than its alternative, alcohol rehabil.itat.ion. The DUI offender represents a greater than average traff.ic safety risk because of his or her involvement in alcohol-related accidents. Although neither ]'icense action nor alcohol rehab'ilitation appear to have much impact on DUI recidivism, license action countermeasures provide some degree of cmpensation for this greater risk in the form of reductions in nonalcohol- re]ated accidents and convictions. Alcoho'l rehabilitation in 'lleu of license act'ion has no such conpensatory benefits. The findings of this study suggest that the original SB 330 sentencing strategy, wh'ich waived license action as an incentive to participation.in an alcohol rehabilitation Program, had a negative impact on traffic safety. The hoped-for reductions in alcohol-related accidents afiong SB 330 program parti- cipants did not occur. These findings ind'icate that sohe other alternative besides license-action waivers shouJd be used as an inducement for repeat DUI offenders to participate in treattrent. Although the SB 330 concept was imp'lemented statewide through sB 3g (Gregorio, 1977), sone of its weaknesses were corrected through subsequent legislation (AB 54.l, Moorhead, l98l) wh'ich limlted participation in lieu of license action to second offenders only. The current sentenclng strategy in CaliFornia also requires that sB 38 participants have their driving privilege restricted (AB 54.|)' This license-restriction approach has been evaluated by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the findings are presented here. Finally, legislation enacted in l9B2 (SB .160.l, Sieroty) requires that SB 3g part'icipants conform to the state's proof of lnsurance requirement .in order to have the'ir license restrictions lifted after complet'ion of the program. The major results pertaining to subsequent acc'ident comparisons and DUI recid'ivism are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Ll 10 M E A NP E4R Y1 EO AO R D ARCIcv IE DR ES N I s Lote-niEht Fotol/lnjury ACCIDENI C,ATEGORT Figure J. Four-yeor occ-ident- rotgs for the three study groups by cotegory of occident. 0.2s 0.2 M E A N T w o P o I N T C o N V I c T I o N s *F Porticipqnts -''ll'- Nonporticiponts 1st 2nd 3rd 4th YEAR Figure 4. Two-point. convictions for porticiponts, nonporticiponts, ond motch counties by foliow-ui yeor. Nonolcotrol 72. ll VOLUME 3: AI'I EVALUATION OF THE SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS FOR FIRST AND REPEAT DUI OFFENDERS Effective January 1, .l982, California 'implemented stricter drunk driving laws (AB 54.l, AB 7) which made lt i1lega1 (per se) to drive with a blood atcohol concentration (BAC) of .10% or higher, and establ.ished more stringent sanctions such as license restriction in addition to partic.ipation in a]cohol-related programs and a mandatory 2-day jail term for repeat offenders. Like the prior iaws, 'license suspensions w€re imposed upon second offenders uho were not referred to programs and upon first offenders wtro did not receive probation. This study evaluated both the effectiveness of the AB 541 sanctions upon the subsequent driving records of large statewide samples of first and second DUI offenders (Study A) and the overall impact of AB 54] on the subsequent driving records of DUI drivers convicted before and after AB 54'1 (study B). Six-month and 1-year posttreatment driving records were compared among second offenders wlro recejved either (l) l_year license suspension, or (2) l-year license restrict'ion plus SB 38 program referra1. Similar driving records were cqnpared for first offenders who received il) 6-month license suspension , Ql jail and f jne on]y, (3) program only, (4) 90-day I icense restriction on1y, or (5) 90-day license restrictlon plus program. sB 3g programs for second offenders were one J,ear in length, while the length of the much brlefer first-offender programs varied substantial ly. Findings frmr the second offender analysis (N = 7,7911 revealed that the suspended group had significantly lower rates compared to the restricted SB 38 group on three posttreatment fi-year) accident measures (nonalcohol, fatal/'iniury and tota'l accidents). The restricted SB 38 group had 9l% more nonalcohol accidents, 39% more fatal/injury accidents, and 35{, more total accidents than the suspended group. Results from the regional analys.is indicated that the same significant group differences on al I three accident measures were present in three regions, but not in Los Angeles (LA) county. L) 12 For alcohol (HBD) accidents, the rates betweer, the two groups dld not differ s ignif icantly, a'lthough the rate for the restricted program group was 20'l lower than that of the suspended group. A difference of thls size or larger would be expected by chance about 13% of the time. The two groups did not d'iffer sign'ificantly on late-night accidents, but the direct'ion of the difference was opposite to that for HBD accidents, with the suspended subjects having l6% fewer incidents. S'ince late-night accidents freqrlently involve alcohol and are often used as an alcohol-surrogate measure, this latter finding strongly suggests that the SB 38/restriction sanction was not any more effectlve than license suspension in reducing alcoho'l-related accidents. The relationship between tyre of sanctlon and subsequent minor traffic conv'iction frequencies was moderated by the offender's prior rate of minor conv'ictions. Those suspended drivers with 2 or more prior convictions had signjficantly fewer subsequent convictions than their SB 38 counterparts. However, there were no differences on subsequent conviction frequency between the suspension and SB 38 groups among those with zero prior moving violation conv ict ions. Qulte different results kere found for subsequent major or Z-point convictions (including DUI). The restricted program group had a 24% lower rate than that of the suspended group, ard this difference was highly significant statistically (P = .002). In general, the results were very similar to those obtained by Sadler and Perrine (19s4) using just four pilot counties. Both studies, for example, found that license suspension reduced the accident risk of the offenders to a level that t,ras close to that of the average driver. In contrast, the restricted SB 38 group had an accident rate much higher than that of the average driver. The first offenrler analyses (N = 29,097) 'lnd'icated that first offenders who were given stronger license control sanctions (6-month license suspension, or 90-day I icense restriction p'lus program) incur,red accident and convictlon rates that were lower than those of offenders given lesser penaities. The restricted program group had the lowest and second to the lowest rates for LLI l3 6-month alcohol and total accidents, while the suspended group had the lowest total accident rate but the highest alcohol accident rate. An anaiysis of the differences by reg'ion ind'icated that the higher alcohol accident rate of the suspended group occurred on'ly 'in LA County. 0n l..year nonalcoho I accidents, the suspended group evidenced the lowest rate, and th.is finding vJas consistent across different levels of pr"ior minor convictions and different reglons. The suspended and restricted program groups evidenced the lowest, or secend to the lowest, rates for 6-month and 1-year m'inor and total convictions. A'lthough the relat'ive effectiveness of the two sanctions varied as a function of prior minor convictions, age, and ZIP code accident averages, the restricted program group had the lqrest subsequent mr'nor and total convlction' rates for al'l categories of these variables combined. The restricted program group had the lowest rate for major convictlons, 14ith a rate that was il.6% rower than that of the suspended group (adjusted scores). However, those who received on'ly a 'license restrict.ion (no program) had 10'2% fewer major violations. It is therefore difficult to attribute the lower DUI rate primarily to the impact of the alcohol program. In comparingfirst offenders with repeat offenders, .it was found that the latter had lower subsequent accident rates but slightly higher major violation rates. The h'igher maior violation rate probably reflects a higher proportion of problem drinkers among second offenders. The lower accident rate for second offenders might be attributable to their more intensive treatment and longer suspension (or restriction) perlod. Findings from Study B .indicated alcohol accident, total accident in l9B2 than in ]980-8.I. These conviction rates in lgg?llgg3. on1y l-year short-term effects; determ'ining if add.itional 1ega1 traff ic safety benefjts ach.ieved that AB 54.l resulted in significantly lower and major convjction rates among DUI drivers lower rates were present despite higher DUI The present study was limited to evaluating a long-range evaluation would be critical in changes were needed to maintain the positr.ve by AB 541. The fo1'lowing recolmendat.ions wene legislation io adopt administrative presented for consideration: (l) Seek license suspension (,,adm.inistrative per L{ l4 ser') upon arrest for DUI, tll trf administrative per se ts not adopted, consider suspending a1'l repeat offenders or suspend with a provision that the suspension period would be shortened upon conpletion of a specified perlod of participation in an alcohol r"ehabilitation program (e.g.,6 months), (3) rf administrative per se is not adopted, seek 'legislat.ion requiring that al j first offenders rece'ive a short-term license suspension (30-90 days) and, in addition, be required to conp'lete an approved alcohol education/treatment program, an! (q) Seek methods of increasing the rate of detection and arrest of drunk drivers. Figures 5 - 9 present a summary of the major driving record results. * Suspenslon + Restriction & Progrum M E A N P ME AR J o1 RO o c OD NRvt IV CE TRls o N c Moles Femoles GENDER figure 5. Adjtlslqd pojor convictions for suspended ond restricted second offenders UV gi-riO"il 7t" 15 M E AP NE R Tol TO AO L D ARctcvIE DR ES N T S 6-MONTH TIME PERIOD Figure 6. Adjusted totol occidents for suspended ond restricted second offenders by 6-month time periods. + Suspension r- Regtriction & Progrorn 1st 6-mo. 1st 6-mo. 2nd 6-mo. 2nd 6-mo. --ft'-- 1-SusPcn:ion -t*- 2-Fine & Joil Only -$- 5-Progrom & Joil -0- 4-Restriction Only -O- S-Restriction & Progrom M E AP NE R To1 TO AO L D ARct CVIE DR ES N T S 6-MONTH TIME PERIOD Figure 7. Adjusted, totol occidents for five first offendergroups by two 6-rnonth time periods. - -- 2:l 16 A D J U SP TE ER D 1 MO AO J OD RR I CV OE NR VS I c T I o N S Finc & Joil Only Progrom tk Joil Rcstriction & Prcarom 0.'1S U B c E a u E N T A c C I D E N T o 0 D s GROUP Figure 8. Adjusted mojor convictions by five first offender groups. 0.08 0.06 0FFENDER STATUS (f of DUt Offenses) Figure 9o. .oa9:.pt o subsequent occident oceurring before ond ofter AB s41uy Dpt..ofeJr_der,siotus. (Evoruoted t yeEisuusequent to ent.y- conviction dote.) Suspenrion 7x 17 0.1S U B S E a U E N T A c c I D E N T o D D S 0.08 0.o6 0.04 0.02 0.04 Rrst w 10fo-81 E resz Second % $80-at El tsaz third Third OFFENDER STATUS (f of DUI Offenses) Figure 9b. pdd-s.9f .o ltlbserq-uent olcohol oc-cident occurring before ond ofterAB 541 by Dtll offender stotus. (Evoluoted 1 yeir subsequent to entry ionviction dote.) e U B s E a U E N T A c c I D E N T o D D S OFFENDER SIAruS (# of DUt Offenses) Figure ec' i,,i"1?tr!-ilyfrlr,*{"?;e{,s:"rf.x?1"*t'o"i',[3,.osJB::ij]1,*t"to entry ionvictlon dote.) -' ' ,' ?) t8 VOLUME 4: EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS EFFICIENCY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPACT THE CALiFORNiA IMPLIED CONSENT PROGRAM The Californja implied consent (IC) ]aw requires that a motorist who has been arrested for driv'ing under the lnf'luence of alcohol or drugs submit to a chemical test (b1ood, breath, or urine) to determjne the alcohol or drug content of his or her blood. A test refusal resu'lts in the automatic loss of al'l driving Priv'ileges for a period of six months to three y€ars, with the 'length of the license action dependent on how many convictions for DUI or alcohol-related reck'less driving violations the refuser has had prior to the arrest. Due process of law is provided through administrative hearings. Ihis study was designed to descrjbe the California IC systern and to answer a number of questions related to the pnogram's operationai efficiency and effectiveness, the characteristics of its target population, and its impact on traffic safety. A narrative and flow chart were developed describing the major components and decision points of the IC system. Time ,lag and frequency data were obtained frqn documents in the case fitres for a samp'le of 4,464 motcrists who refused a test in lg8l or 1982. The driving records for these refusers were a'lso obtained, and the accident and conviction data were used to determlne: (l) whether a conviction r'ras obtajned for the reJated DUI charge, (2) traffic safety risk leveis, and (3) the traffic safety impact of the IC 'l'icense suspension. The driving records for a smal l samp'le of refusers whose suspensions h,ere reinstated in October .l984 after being upheld 'in an adminjstrative hearing (n = 392) were used to determine the effects on t'ime lags of changes in the IC system subsequent to l9B2 The DMV rece'ived 31,978 chemical test refusal reports from law enforcenent agencies ln .1982, Ninety-eight percent (3.l,285) of these reports resulted in license suspensions. Approximately 3l% $,612) of those suspended requested hearin.cJs. 0n the average, one out of every two hearings was rescheduled, About 27''" of those who requested hearings either failed to appean at or cancelled the'ir hearings. About 9?% of all hearings resulted in suspensions being upheld. AN OF Vo l9 During l98l to 1982, the time 1ag from refusal to the ma'i'l'ing of a suspension order was 27.9 days for refusers who did not request hearings and 29.6 days for refusers who requested hearings. However, 'in 0ctober 1984, this time 1ag had dropped to .I9.9 days (for those requesting hearings). The time 1ag from refusal to the mailing of a suspension-reinstatement order was 139.9 days and 122.5 days for the l98l-82 and October 1984 periods respectively. The differences in t'ime 'lags between 198.I-BZ and October 1984 appear to be too large to be exp'lained by seasonal variation, and are probably attributable to changes in the processing of refusal reports, the decentraf izat'ion of the hearing review process, and fleld updating of IC actions following hearings. Although it has been shortened since 1982, the time lag from refusa'l to suspension might be reduced further. In the hearing process, a s'ign'ificant source of de'lay was the high rate of hearing reschedulings. 0n the average, one out of every two hearings h/as rescheduled (three out of four vfien subjects were represented by counsel). Another source of de'lay in the hearing process was the preparation of hearing reports and mail irrg them to the DF1V headquarters, which tcok more than five w'eeks for 50% of the cases. The activit'ies invo'lved 'in schedul ing, reportlng, and reviewing hearings should be examined in detail to identify ways to shorten the time iag. In 1982, about 60.6% of refusers were convicted of the related DUI charge, cmpared to a 66.'l? conviction rate for all DUI arrestees. If the drinking driver popu'lation were aware that refusing a test does not substantia'l'ly 'increase the probability of avoiding a DUI convjction, and that rece.iv.ing an IC suspension is virtually a certainty, fewer refusals might result. The proportion of repeat offenders was much (about 55%) h'igher for refusers than for nonrefusers. Desp'ite this and other bef,ween-group differences, the net total accident risk of refusers and nonrefuseri over a 30-month period (conbining the 18 months prior and the 12 months subsequent to the beg-inning of their sanct'ions) differed by iess than l9l. In the subsequent'12 months, both refusers and nonrefusers were found to have higher risks of accident 'involvement than the genera'l driving popuiation. The resu'lts from an analysis of the traff ic safety impact of the IC suspension demonstrated that suspending refusers is an effective counter- 3\ 20 measure for this subgroup of the DUI popu'lation, Dur.ing the 6-month suspension period, refusers whose suspensions were reinstated after an administrative hearing had significantly fewer alcohol-related accidents (63.7%1, nonalcohol-related acc'idents (76.5%), and total accidents 02.2'll than did refusers wlrose suspensions were set aside. Given the high costs and lengthy time lags associated with the IC hearing process, the Department should explore alternatives to lower costs and shorten time lags without sacrificing the traffic safety benefjts a'lready achieved by the current system. One way to reduce the costs of the iC program would be to d'iscourage hearing requests from those who are]'ike1y to cance'l or fail to appear. A filing fee (refundable if the subject is upheld) might d'iscourage many of the less resolute hearing requestors. One pronis'ing approach for reducing both tirne lag and costs is early administrative per se suspension accottpanied by postsuspension adm'inistratjve revieh,s. Law enforcement officers could seize the driver license of a refuser and issue a form serving both as temporlry license (good for, say, 7 days) and a suspension notice. Refusers would be suspended ear'lier, and there would be fewer hearing requests because the suspens,ion would nemain in effect pending the outcme of the hearing, rrrtrich wrruld discourage di'latory hearing reqr.lests. Thls approach has been successfully used in Minnesota for several years, both for those who refuse tests and those who fail them (by having blood alcohol concentrations of.l0% or higher). Motivated to a large extent by the early suspens'ion criterion for qualifying for the Federal Alcohol Incentive Grant Program, lT states have adopted laws slmjlat to Mi nnesota' s. Results summarizing selected cornparisons between suspended and nonsuspended offenders are summarized in Figures l0 and ll. 32- 21 3' M E A N T o T A L A c c I D E Nr s 0.08 0.06 0.02 Figure 10. 0.06 0.04 o.02 1st ?:nd B-MONTH PERIOD -tFSuspension set oside -*- Suspension reinstoted Totol occidents for suspension-reinstoted ond suspension- set-oside subjects by 6-month follow-up period. M E A N T w o P o I N T c o N V I c T I o N S --o-Suspension set qside -*- Suepension reinstotod 1st 2nd 3rd 6.MONTH PERIOD Figure 1 1. lwo-point convictio.n€ for suspension-reinstoted ondsuspensron-set-oside subject's by 6-month roilowjuppenod. )3 22 VOLUME 5: THE CALIFORNIA DUI COUNTERMEASURE SYSTBII: AN EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PROCESSING AND DEFICIENCIES Among the major objectives of th'is study were the identification of defic- iencies in the California DUI countermeasure system and an empirical evaluat'ion of the frequency with wtrich DUI offenders avoid timely processing or circumvent system countermeasures due to these deficiencies. The methodology proposed to ach'ieve these objectives, that of tracking a sample of DUI offenders through the DUI system, also embodied the generai object'ive of the study: to empirica'l]y describe and analyze the flew of DUI offenders through the California DUI countemrcasrire system. A total of 3,959 DUI offenders arrested by 44 law enf,orcement agencies in 7 sample counties were tracked through the DUI system from the po'int of arrest through postconviction countermeasures. A separate sample of 70.I conv'icted DUI offenders referred to alcohol education/treatment programs in the 7 samp'le counties vras identified from program provider records and tracked through Department of Motor vehic'les, court, and program records. Anong the results of the ernpirica'l analysis of DUI offender flow through the DUI countermeasure systen were the fo'llowing: o There t{as wide variation in the probability of conviction for a DUI offender depending upon the county and court in wirich the offense was adiudicated; the use of sanctions also varied wide'ly by county and court. o The majority of alcohol education/treatment program dropouts were not reported to the DMV by the courts, and a substantia'l proportion of' DUI offenders avoided license suspension as a result. o 9% of drivers arrested for DUI were under 'license suspension or revocation at the time of arrest; on:ly 20?/ of these drivers were convicted for the offense of driving while suspended or revoked. o A surprisingly large proportion of DUI offenders were unlicensed il3fl) or had mult'ip1e driver records (2.5't) . ,14 23 The average elapsed time between DUi arrest and DlvlV action exceeded 6 months. 0ver 90% of thls time was attributable to court processing and report ing . The statewide DUI convictjon rates in rg8r and l9g2 were, respectively,60 and 66%. Inclusion of reckless conviction pjeas in these figures increased the respective rates to 7l and 16%. The increase in conviction rate between lggl (pre-AB s4l) and ]982 (post- AB 54.I) occurred only among first offenders. The conviction rate for second offenders actually decreased. 17% of the reckless driving convictions resulting from a lgg2 DUI aryest were incorrectly reported as regular (nonalcohol) reckless offenses and could therefore not be used as,lpriors" for license action purposes. o Slightly fewer than 20t of the DUI offenses invoiving an injury or fatality resulted in felony arrests and only 20/" of the fe'lony arrests resulted in a felony DUI conviction. Based on study find.ings it was concluded that: (l) the probabi.lity of punishment for DUI offenses must be increased in order to produce any 'large scale 'impact on the problem of drinking and driving , (Zl the citation and conv'iction rates of those who drive wh'ile suspended or revoked must be improved in order for license suspension to remain an effective and credible traffic safety countermeasure, (3) in order for the DUI countermeasure system to functjon as a true system, goals and objectives must be developed along with a management information system to assess the achievement of those goals and objectives, and (4) improvement is needed 'in the accuracy of records in the DUI countermeasure system. Accordingly, the following reconrnendations for system improvements were offered: (1) Iegislation should be enacted to require administrative per se license suspension upon amest for DUI and for any conviction of DUI, (2) efforts should be undertaken to improve the prosecution and conviction of drivers known to violate the suspension/revoca- tion order, (3) a coordlnating committee or centralized agency should be estabiished to set the goals and objectives of the DUI countermeasure system, 3f 24 and a management information systen developed to continuous'ly assess the achievement of those goals and objectives, and (4) the DMV should establish criteria for matching accident reports and court abstracts to driver records which maximize the probabil'ity of match'ing entries to existing driver records without significantly 'increasing the number of incomect matches. Figure 12 describes the volume flows various branches and paths of the DUI and conditional probabilities through control system. % 25 Et;grg aElt !*Eaq isE .iE q*6 , ,UEF Er rEI ! .trEE trrb8 5--EA 5EY tEi t' 5 Egl EII -BE * g--Ess EIH EEI' bE J! IH o\ * d { t 4 HeH *'8 5l arE E-E iECE $t adIF tt v1 mmmmtufl. um 12. Won: now lunatic- (or qr jig “HE E 5 [I 3. £ :5 a! I a ' a E = ‘ s-E b: fl I l ~E I n fl fi s: a: 3; -§§ a a E a a 5 I ail ‘ l“. i5 35 mm-mum MINIMUM n ESESEEmmm m I - I 3m.” um! h 37 ?6 VOLUME 6: ATI EVALUATtrON OF THE IMPACT OF A I^IARNING LETTER FOR FIRST TIME DUI OFFENDERS" The cal ifornia driver irnprovement system has histor-ical ly used a warning letter ('W/L) as the first'intervention for persons with unsafe driving records' This study was deslgned to evaluate the effect of warning letters and pamphlets on subsequent accident and conv'iction rates f,or first-DUI offenders. . The study assessed the effect of two different factors: type of warning letter and frequency of contact. Two warning letters were used; the first was a "standard" warnirq letter intended fon use in future DMV negl igent operator programsn and the second was an experimental "persona'l'izedn warnirq Jetter which described the potential consequences of driving whi'le intoxicated and which outlined alternatives to unsafe drinki ng-and-driv ing pract ices. Methods The subject sample was composed of 4.l,9.l4 California drivers who had been convjcted of a "firstr' DUI offense. consistent with present law, a DUI conviction uas cons'idered a "first'i offense if no other DUI offenses (leading to conviction) had occurred within the 5 years pneceding the current'violation date. Furthermore, only first-DUl offenders who possessed a val id california driver's license and who were over the age of zl were eligib.le forthis study. To assess the effect of type of warning letter, drivers were assigned either to a control group or to one of two warning letter treatment groups wtrich received either the "standard" warninE letter or the experimental warningletter' To assess the effect of frequency of contact, a th.ird treatment group tllas designated to receive two mailings of the experimental warning :letten, with only minor variations in the content of the first and second letters. It was intended to randqnly assign first-DUl offenders to the control and treatment cond'itions throughout the duration of the subject selection process- Unfortunately, computer program modifications required for persons assigned to receive the experimerrtal warning letter were not conpleted rrntil 3E 27 eight weeks after the start of the warning letter program. Due to thjs constraint' some assignments had to be nested with respect'to time. This confounded the design for assessing the effect of type of warning 'letter, making it impossible to test for the interaction between time perlod and treatment effects. Criterion Measurgs The factors of frequency of contact and type of warning letter'were measured by their effect on five accident and conviction criterion measures collected from the subsequent lZ-month driver record (i.e.r fidjor convictions, total convict'ions, alcoho'l-relaterl accirlents, total accidents, and number of days to first maior conviction). B'ias analyses were conducted to i$entify relevant predlctor variables on wlr ich the treatment groups differed s'ignificantly. There a'lso existed variability in the criterjon,measures due to characteristics (i.e., covariates) not significantly related to treatment group assignment which cou'ld serve to decrease the abr'lity to detect legitimate treatment effects. Covariance analysis was used to statistical 1y adjust for the effects of such variables. Resu.'lt.s Separate analyses were performed for the frequency-effect groups and ,,type of warning letter"-effect groups. Stepwise regression analysis was used to identify potentlal covar.iates. Age showed a consistent negative relationship w'ith all the dependent measures, indicative of the greater incidence of accidents and conv'ictions among more youthful drivers. Measures of ptnior accidents and convictions showed their expected positive relationship with measures of subsequent fiZ-month) accidents and conv'ictions. Subsequent convictions were signiflcantly related to gender, with greater incidence among male drjvers. Effects of Frequenc.y of Mail.inq Separate tests of significance were performed for each of the dependent measures using the factors frequency of mai'ling and samp'ling time period. There were no significant effects of freq0ency of mail.ing (one experimental l,l/L vs. two experimental hllls), with the exception of a significant increase 28 in toteil acci'dents for persons ilto recejved two mailings of the experimental W/L. The expectation would be that a second ma'i1ing of the l.l/L would have either no effect or a slight positive effect. It is conjectured that th.is significant increase 'in total accidents is probably not meaningful and that there 'is, 'in general, no d'ifference between one or two mai'lings of the experimental warn'ing ietter. Effecls of T.vpe of hlarninq Letter Tests of statistlcal significance were performed on each of the dependent measures using the factors "type of warn'ing letter" (control, standard, or experimenta'l) and sampling time period. l,lithout exception, there were no treatment effects associated with type of LIIL. Furthermore, the direction of the nonsignificant mean differences was neither consistent nor suggestive of meaningful interpretation. In general, the groups who received a !il/1, either standard or experlmental, tended to have an increased ihcidence of alcohol-reiated accidents and (major) convictionr una i a...au;.d incidence of total accidents and convict'ions relative to the .onIiJ6-r,0. These directional differences are precise'ly the opposite of those expected, based upon the hypothesized effect of U/Ls. Conc I us ions Based on the results of these analyses, it ums concluded that warning letters are not an effective treatment for first-DUI offenders, as measured by subsequent accident and cotrviction criteria, since ne'ither the content (personalized or standard) nor the frequency of warn'ing letter mailings yielded significant differences. tt 'is recommended that none of the warning letters be implemented as countermeasures for use on the first-offense drunk driving population targeted in th'is study. +o ?9 VOLUME B: DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A RISK ASSESSIVIENT STRATEGY FORMEDICALLY IMPAIRED DRIVERS The primary objectives of this project were the clevelopment and evaluat.ion ofa strategy for assessing the traff ic safety risk of med.ical ly impaireddrivers' The risk assessment strategy developed for this project involved considerat'ion of an explicit set of obiective and subjective r.isk factors inmedical condjtion cases, and was imp'remented through the use of a ,,probabrerisk checklist-" The probabre risk checkr-ist was pilot tested on 3,rz;nedical cases in one of four driverirnprovement reg.ions in california from February 22, ]982 through June 25, lggl. Analysis of the pi.lot study data showed that: o The best predictor of departmental estimates of risk and licensing acti.onsin med'ical cases was the risk factor,,rack of insight,,,which.is asubjective measure of the Driver safety Referee,s ior*r' ;;r;;.; impression of the driver. This imp'lies that cuffent departmentaleva'luatlons and actions with respect to medically impaired drivers are more a function of subjective, clinical assessments if,un they are ofob'iective criteria known to be associated with risk (prior accidents,convictions, etc.). o uhire general 1y there appears to be an appropriate and rationaJrelationsh'ip between prior drJver record, estimated risk, and licensingactions, this does not appear to be the case for drivers with alcohol]related conditions' Althouqh drivers receiving .i..rl.i prouution hadextremely high prjor mean accidents and convictions, their estimated r.iskwas judged to be only slightly h.igher than average, whire their on._r.u. subsequent driver records were the worst of any ricensinE action group.These data suggest that the DSRs are undenestimating the risk of medical lyimpaireddriverswithalcoho].relatedcondjtions. o The reactions of DSRs to the probable risk checklist were generallynegative' although they do not appear to be opposed, in principre, to theconcept of a systematic strategy for assessing the rist< oi medically impa ired dr.ivers. 4t 30 The p'lanned anaiyses on the impact of the probable rjsk checklist on DSR Iicens'ing act'ions and the predictive validity of objective versus c'linicalindices were not comp'leted because of funding l.imitations. Due to thecriticality of these analyses for making departmental pol.icy and procedural recommendatjons, it was recommended that the analyses be completed throughfuture grant funds or as part of the department's ongoing research and development program. The recommended additional analyses, if successful, should lead to 'implementat'ion of a more reliable and val id method of assessing traffic safety risk in med.icar condition cases. It was also recornmended that, as an interim tneasure, steps should be taken to improve risk assessment of drivers with alcohol-related medical conditlons" 4> 3l POLiCY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is evident, from the preceding summaries and the numerous studies reviewed in the full technical volumes, that California's current DUi control system contains considerable room forimprovement. In th'is sect'ion we will discuss DUI control in the context of modern deterrence theory and systems analysis, followed by a review of two recent national policy studies on DUI control. Having established the necessary conceptual foundation and policy perspective, we will proceed to outline the parameters of an optimum, or at least improved, process for the control of ealifornia,s DUI problem. Detemence Theorv The extent to tnfrich laws and criminal sanctions reduce the probab.ility of (deter) deviant and unlawful behavior is the central province of deterrence theory. Deterrence theorists distinguish between two major types of deterrence-'specific and general. The former refers to the effect of a law or sanction policy on the subsequent behavior of those who are detected and sanctioned for a given offense. The effect of jail or fine on the recidivism rate of conv'icted drunk drivers is a class ica'l example of specif .ic deterrence. General deterrence, on the other hand, refers to a law,s impact'in deterring the general population from engaging in the undesirable behavior' In the case of DUI behavior, the effects of sobriety checkpoints, i11ega'l per se BAC laws and mandatory .jall sentences on a populationrs tendency to engage'in that behavior are examples of general deterrence. These different'channels of effects are diagramrned in F'igure 13. It is important to recognize that there may be little relationship between the two types of effects. A law may be very effective in deterring large segments of the population from engaging'in deviant behavior, but have no effect on the subsequent recidiv'ism rate of those who are arrested and convicted of the offense. Conversely, 'it 'is poss ible for a sanction to affect its rec'ip'ients, but have no impact on the larger popu.lation,s propensity to engage in that behavior. There 'is considerabje evidence and rationale to support emphasis on general deterrence offers more potential the cont,ent'ion that than does specif .ic ttg trl Z F{o>ooEIHH(aF.E{04 du&m!{Fl!aHfiFr()EUTOEEtrElE{Hrrao (9 z H>o HH&}I66 D tl P.,{ C{ el fro E EI F4 EI EI el(I fid F{ C) Hk H() EI A UI og Fq &t E! Oqn HEIZIr bDq Al() fstzE{ooz!48E{bOU O'H FT, EI >kr4;( E{ gl It r'l D lrulo o H tq H(, FI O{(,) 32 I6 & tT H A 8H Eil l{ ut ,Bt! H U H Ef4( ltflo$fl E ,tE Ea ts tI & ,Di F H r{ f;I A 4+ 33 deterence. General deterrence app'lies to the entire population at risk for a given deviant behav'ior,/sanction po'licy, whereas specif ic detemence applies only to the deviant ind'ividuals who are detected and sanctioned for the behavior. In the case of drunk driv'ing, such indiv'iduals nepresent only a very small proportion of the drinking/driving population and these ,,self- selected" individuals tend to be resistant to mod'ification. To be effective, both deterrence mechanisms are dependent on the presence of a sufficient subiective perception of detection which, in turn, is a partial function of the obiective probability that a given inc'ident of impaired driving will result in arrest and pun'ishment. Detemence theorists have frequently emphasized that lncreasing the severity of punishment, jn the absence of sufficient subiective probability of detection, has little detement value and may even have undesirable system consequences. Californiars adoption of a .10% per se BAC 1aw primarily operates to increase general deterrence, and there is evidence (Volume 3) that it has had both general and specific deterent effects. Perhaps the singl: most important poiicy recommendation to ernerge from this study (Volumes 3 and 5) was for adoption of an administrative per se l.icense suspension statute. The deterrence potential of such a statute stems from its multiple effects on a'll facets of deterrence - probability of detection, swiftness, probability of rece'iving the appropriate sanction, reduced exposure, and increased sever.ity. Although most would agree that dete*ence (of impaired driving) and traffjc safety are the pn'imary terminal objectives of iaws against impaired driving, there are constraints and subobjectives which must also be satisfied. A number of investigators have commented that the DUI control process is not reaily a system sjnce the involved agencies operate relatively independently and pursue, in some cases! confl'icting objectives (Finkelstein & McGuire, l97l)' Aithough the existence of mu'ltiple objectives and constraints is a rea'l'ity that must be accepted, this should not militate against mov.ing toward a more systems-oriented approach to DUI control. 4r 34 It may be informative to consider the fornal requirements of any socialcontrol process if it is to function as a true,,system.,, l. The process must have some urtimate purpose and set of goals. 2 ' The actions of the operators must have some causal influence in promotingprogress toward the terminal goa1s. 3' There must be accepted measures of ,,system performance,, for gaug.ing thesystem's effectiveness in achieving its central purpose and obiectives. 4' The system managers must share a common set of assumptions and underiying axioms regarding the nature of the prob.lems, causes and methods ofcontrol. 5' There must be a management information system for providing feedback onthe syster's effectiveness in achievirrg.its purpose and goa1s. 6' uhere a multipf icity of objectives and constraints exist, there must besome method of assigning prlorities and al'locating resources whichcontribute toward achieving the system,s urtimate purpose. A macro-illustration of the interrelat'ion of the functions of the majororganizatlonal entities jnvolved in drunk driver control is shown in Figure.|4. To'illustrate some of the attributes listed above, it is necessary tosuperimpose on this diagram a variety of managenent functions designed toexecute, monitor and contror the entire process. To the extent that publ.ic safety is accepted as the ult'imate objective of DUI control, thi, munug.*.ntprocess can be viewed as a form of risk management. Figure 15 shows a verysimplified diagram of a risk management process for driver contror. The existence of quantifiable measures of system performance and a management information system for providing "feedback" to various ievels of managers andpolicy makers are crucial elements to any risk management process. Theabsence of a feedback system makes it impossible to monitor systemperformance, impossible to assure quafity control, and djfficult to implement L(b 35 Pi.g"r. 14 OBJECTIVE OF CA LI FORNIA ENFORCEMENT/ORIVER C0NTROL PROCESS AS A SySTEf$r II{FAASTIOH DRIVER IUPROVEXEINT DRIUIHG CALIFORN IA E}IFORCEMEilT COIIPLEX DETECTIOT{ CH P & LOCAL POI-ICE AD.IUDICATIOIT TRAFFIC COU RTS LICEilSE COilTROL OBEY LAWS NEDUCED ACICI \,/ 36 Figure 15 A RISK I{ANAGEIYIENT IVIODEL OF DRIVER COIITROL ESTABLISHTV1ENT OF RISK THRESHOLDS IDENTIFICATNON OF HI6H RISK DRIVERS IDENIIFTCATION OF EFFECTIVE TREATI1ENT AND SANCTIONS INCREASEO, .qAFETY BENEFITS PER DOLLAR OF EXPENDITURE ITERATIVE REFINEI{ENT AND l.lAXIllIZATION OF SAFETY BENEFiTS RISK ANALYSIS COUNTERI1EASURE DEVELCPIIENT RESOURCE ASSESSI,lENT & ALLOCATION STRATEGIES I'IANAGEMENT INFORf'lATION & EVALUATION SYSTEill 4E 37 the corrective actions and innovations required for improvement and coherent planning. As a first step toward promoting a "systems orientatjon,, toward DUI control in california, thjs Department has received a grant from the 0ffjce of Traffic Safety (0TS) entitled Development of fln Improved l,lanagement control system for DUI Drivers. it is be'lieved that impiementation of the system deve'loped from this grant will do much to improve and maintain system performance and process quality with'in acceptable thresholds. I; is important to recognize that the above grant will focus on admin.istrative and process measures' rather than on the system's effectjveness in reducing drunk driving and DUI-related crashes, This latter object1ve is the s'ubject of another 0TS grant entiil* rfi ouru tur" uro R"qjoirrr* r.."krno rrr**. Neither of these grants, however, wi'|1 provide a basis for .identifying the innovations and po'licy changes needed for achieving major reductions in drunk driving and DUI-related crashes. Fortunately, there already exists a body of emp'iricai evidence and theory to provide the necessary policy guidance. Some of this evidence was provided in the previous sections of this rnonograph and in the detailed'literature reviews presented in the technical reports for each study vo'lume. Additional support can be found in the recomrendations of two recent national policy monographs on drunk driving-_one by the President's National Commission Against Drunk Driving and the other by the funerican Bar Association- The recommendations of these studies are presented bel ow. Repo"t of the National comission Aqainst Drunk D"ivinq- Based on expert testimony and a review of the pertinent literature, this presldential-appointed cornmission offered 19 "high priority', recommendations for combating the DUI problem. The results of a survey of each state's status on the recommendations were presented in the Commission,s 19g6 progress report' A "scorecard. of the survey results reproduced from the commission's report is shown in Table J. california is shown as conformingto 13 of the lg recommendations. It wourd be more accurate, however, to reduce this number to 12, since jt is known that suspended violators are frequently not prosecuted for drlving w'ith a suspended Jicense and, even when convicted, they frequent]y avoid the mandatory jail sentences authorized under cal'ifornia statutes (Recommendation r6). Severar of the areas of 41 3B o E ;U .: E E 3 to r{ o r{ ! .d E{ (5 Z 2arrO63 f.z &? =E l= {- 59o,g J.Yg8 Lso6 F- z, cNtHo^ri\ NtsNoSstA vtNtoutA "li.NOl9NtHsv,vr vll{tDurA l!sslxitll vr.o)tvo'ls YN|]ouvt'rs .oNv-lst 30ollu oalu vtNv^'IlsNit:td lro9!uo YAOHflXO ol+tq .vloxlo:lt stot{t'tlt vtgcoto wruo'lJ .SuVfrvlio roql:llNNoc oowol0c vtil80Jtlvc svsilvxuY vflozluv .vltsv'tv .v}.vgY'lv c ,9 Ea L6oqoE e8 EE s3o- =o8!tso< !x>ao 3 an c e I. ; 9 n! ESca aor5g : qE 6 .aJ!e Ei EgE 5"EE€ ESZse EgE;B Es=go E;3d! 3S gEiH EBEgb 6! !.J As: sRB lE ll a'- * Jo 39 nonconformance represent countermeasures which have large deterrent potentials. Specifically: o Recommendation #3 - administrative per se license suspension o Recommendation #12 - exc'lusion of DUI plea bargaining o Recommendation #.l4 - min'imum 90-day license suspension for first offense With respect to Recommendation 17, the Comm'ission's report shows Cal'ifornia as not having mandatory presentence invest'igation (pSI), which is still true. However, SB 2206 - hlatson (1986) was enacted'into law on 1/1/87 establishing PSI standards, a funding mechan'ism and discretionary authority for judicial use. The needs and benefits of a PSI requirement were not evaluated by any of the studies described 'in previous sections, but were assessed in a l97E DMV study (Epperson, Harano and Peck, ]975). Although we do not believe that PSIs offer a great deal of deterrent potential, they can result in a more objective and rat'ional sanction decision and are perhaps defensjble on these grounds. The American Bar Association conducted a cmnprehensive review of the'lega'I, enforcement, administrative, and sanctioning considerat'ions relative to DUi control in the un'ited states. The fol]owing is a summary of major conc'lusions and recommendations contained in their l986 final report. o Sobriety checkpo ints represent a prom'is'ing deterrent strategy, at least over the short term. o Blood alcohol "per setting the max.imum o The mininrum drinking c Server llabjlity and serf 'l aws a t BAC > 0. I 0% lega.1 1y perur'i ssab lJat cofro t age should be 2l in all states. dram shop laws should be enacted should be establlshed 'in corttent for driving. and supported. ev'idence of driver civil cases arising o Leg-isl ation shoul d be supported al 'lowi ng relevant impairment from alcohol or drugs to be admitted in from traffic accidents. 5( 40 Mandatory min'imum ia'il terms should be supported for multiple offenders, supplemented by other punitive and rehabilitative sanctions. Subjective judicial discretion in sanctioning first offenders should be reduced or eliminated. Instead, sanctions (inc'luding jail) should be based on objective criteria such as a first-offender's blood alcohol level and past driving record, and "aggravat'ing circumstansesr,' such as an accident involvement. Any additional "individualized,, sanctions above mandatory minimums should be based on presentence investigation repor.ts (psi). r charge-reduction negotiat'ions should be reduced or eliminated. a state imp'i ied consent laws should be amended, where necessary, to authorize po]ice to require (force) drivers involved in serious accidents to submit to chemical tests when evidence of probab'le impairment exists. I Administrative per se 'license suspension laws should be supported, subject to certain due process procedures. c Pena'lties for driving wi'th a suspended/revoked license should be increased and mo!"e strictly enforced. Convictions for drunk driv.ing whjle undep license suspension should be considered an "aggravating factor', in enhanc'ing sanctions for the DUI offense. A comparison of the recormendations of the above two policy reviews ind.icates a large degnee of concordance between the two groups and,'in turn, con- currence with the conclusions and recommendations contained 'in the prececJino sections of this monograph. Having established a reasonabiy compelfing consensus as to the structure of anr,idealu DUI control program, it is appropriate to review Cajiforn'ia's program in light of thls nucleus of optimum characteristics and then proceed to outl ine desir:able alter.ations in California's statutory and administrative policy. 5?- 4t A detajled flow chart of California,s DUI control systems, from the po.int ofarrest to DMV receipt and action, t,las presented in Volume l. This descrip- t jon reflects statutory and admin'istrat'ive policy as of lggz. It therefore does not reflect changes wh'ich have occured during subsequent years, and italso provides rit,e detair on the.process of re-instatjng drivers from sus-pension. ['le have therefore developed two charts for use in guiding thisdiscussion' The first is a tree diagram whose graphics are based on those ofthe Automobile Club of Southern Californiars ,DUI Tree of Know1edge.,, it shows the array of sanctions under current law for convicted,DUI offenders having varyjng numbers of prior convictions (Figure 16). The second chart.is a flow diagram showing the postconviction DMV process in considerable detail(Fiqure 17). Just a cursory glance at Figure 16 is sufficient to allow the concluslon that ca'lifornia's sanction policy is highly complex and provides agreat deal of judicial discretion. A more detailed inspection also jndicates that the system'is not consistent with some of the recommendations frorn the above two policy studies. Probably the most notab'le conflict relates to the recommendation for a mandatory license suspension for first offenders. Although F"igure i6 indjcates that courts have discretionary authority to sus- penci fit^st offenders, the results presented in voJume 5 indicate that only 3%of f irst offenclers actually receive a suspension. perhaps more noteworthy .is the fact that california law does not require suspension of second offenders. As indicated by the tree diagr"am, second offenders who enroil and comp.lete aone-year rehab'ilitation program receive only a license restriction. The sanction configuratlon'is further complicated by the fact that the courts use sanctions that are not authorized by statute, at least insofar as thlscan be inferred from abstracts of conviction reported by the courts. In Volumes 3 and 5 of the DUI systems study, it was found that some firstoffenders have their licenses restricted without also being required toattend an alcohol educatt'on program, and that mandatory jail sentences arenot a'lways given. Another questionable sanction, though permissible undercurrent iaw' 'is to assign first offenders to an education program wjthoutalso restrict'ing the offender's driving privilege. This is a very commonly used sanct'ion, as shoWn in Volumes 3 and 5. 53 42 I, 3 GI -8 to,3 t" E= r5 =& & I i ! :3 ifi!iil i i i,,il i*i i;riiiiiii'i;i, qq !iI t t I I 2 o o E q H 5a I C o k5 u o 5x A do!g oIas iiiiil' ri:ili i itl!;: Y***, c.5t { oltitrtsl€rxra.{( - {+, ."-- .E ; $ +r f f t".- :*; I t L 58 r6 8T B8 ol :o .kEth ,' f 9, I I ! zt ! I t I a i ! t ti ri. i i*9E ! = -.'{:ri r Itii tI L tt !rI EIci ir; t-ili! ^" i rl}il r[ IIi iiiiriiiiii Fliiiiiriit i tt! .tEr Iti !l $ iil iIi cjE ;! I =ii nii; fll $!i -i titeii] !:r,iiIji!, rrf;i!ti!i ,!a iirjil R-q t r !ii; .r ii iil! ii:ii i Ii["iliii tr iiiliiiiisii ir . il l: i,ri*-"1 el f;!l:,.:; iiriii!;l! fqii iiitfgi ilii;iiiiiir t ;iI 6 E E ! 3-! rtirri r bt i : trl ir ,[!lIrB i:!!.E?? tr df r eiqi;!ilE:i!iIrt- liiii{tii ! tra, ILi - -t t-t : !e t; r'l- ! ir F -..li .'t! :liii si !l iiri. [: tl :t.irrsrI :l Ig iiii:!-!i,ii, !;itigi;;ii!l :t Ir t!c i El ! I r[-t Ii Iit id ?:.. g :ar:- ----ia.-ti6:t5:a ii !i;l ! :- iil t+ ! EI rl! E it It i:i Eiit!iii, E$!#;t!t T t t it ! t t{" tr i t is !i-L r .rit .9t: - : -li !ir: t! a tE iii sitr3ir rii iii :-r ! !. =rl n 8t tEi q r6 !:! 80 t r irllI t l-l-=tt!: i! I bt I!! ri-e ;ii Ei! a;--€ff $:: I iri:r:ctf it slti ,,- ! . ! t r I I i rE3t !!tl ceelii!r-*'Eto!6iA=iti 6 Fl I : i; E I;IiI: I T E I I tt I 88 $r :! :$ iir!(t .t E3 I. :! -l !t: hqLI :lt Itt I g 3{.8 f E!?4. lllEi[;rr;liEti6i:it iiSE;8 !-ttrtt: *: I S6t3 tirI ti- ! t tg ::-t i I :t!gf i; I l,slgtE lol :!i-..lii t8! iri it r Itttl: t .i I eE ia ii E 'itr !-r.r n! r {Iiii irii ;r.li tl :l-: !{ fir-etfi 5+ 43 An analysis of F'igure 17 pinpoints some other defects in the system. Note, fcr exampie, that second offenders assigned to SB 38 programs maintain their (restricted) I icense privilege fo'l1ow.ing program completion without having to file and maintain evidence of proof of insurance, Another problem relates to quality contro'l and verification of program completion. In first-offender programs, the courts are theoretjcally responsible for determining com- pliance. However, there is no explicit requirement to monitor completion status, to notify DMV of nonattendance, or to impose jail and/or license suspension- The system for monitoring comp'l'iance varies from court to court and is general'ly not reliable. tn some cases, offenders assiqne6 to a program never show up and th'is fact does not become known to the courts. in the case of second-offender programs, the rehabilitation providers report dropouts rlirectly to DMV, which then issues license suspensions. As jn the case of first offenders, reporting has been neither: reliable nor timely. The entire process'!s further complicated b.y the fact that the court can readmit dropouts and noncompliers back into the program up to two tjnres. Each drorrout and readmission results in'impos.ition and then term.inat.ion of license suspension. if first-offender and repeat-offender programs continue as sanction optionsr we recsnmend the fo1'lowing changes: c Positive reporting of cornf:letion status to Failure to rece'ive completion reports within a result in I icense suspens.ion. Dl,lV should be required. specified time period would o offenders who drop out or do not compl.y with program requirements should not be allowed to have the ensuing'license suspension terminated upon readnittance to the prooram. Recall that the process flow chart shown in as constituted'in 1982. A cornparison of (Fiqure 2) reveals severaj changes worthy of Volume I was based on the system Figure 17 with that flow chart mention. l' Leqislation effective on 7/1/85 requires that four-t'ime offenders and repeat felony offenders who have not completed an approved one-year SB 3g f 44 , ii li 3t T l !i I'iI lfll il,. iiii rii rli.t ->l tli I I tI f I ! T ! It i I I t--t !iji j lt t i jt > I a ! 8 & n B t I I 5t E . 1 L una : . 1 I l a u : E : L 45 program are required to comp'lete a prognam pr.ior to being reinstated. The. Department must also conduct reentry interviews to establ'ish the fitness of such offenders to drive before reinstating their license pr iv i 1ege. ? Legislation effective on 7 /1/85 extends to lB suspension for two-time offenders who do not enro'll SB 38 alcohol-rehabilitation program. months the I icense in, and complete, an 3. Legislati'on effectjve on 1/1/87 changes the counting period for DUi priors from 5 to 7 years. 4. Legislation effective on 1/1181 makes it unlawful for a minor to drive with a BAC of .05% or more. Offenders are requ'ired to complete an alcohol education or community service program. 5. Leqis'latjon effective on 1/1lAS requires that minors convicted of DUI complete a one-year alcohol treatment program. 6. Legislation effective on 1/1/84 requires that minors conv'icted of DUI have their licenses revoked for i year, to age lg, or for the usual period prescribed by'law, whichever .is'longer. Some Improved System Alteftqtives A number of recommendations for improving Californ'ia's DUI control systenr wer'e presented in volumes 3 and 5 0f the DUI systems study (Tash.ima & peck,.l987; Helander, 1986). Spec.ific recommendations pertaining to the implied consent law are contained in Volume 4 (Sadler, l986). These recommendations are summarized in the earlier sections of this report. Based on these results and the considerations presented above, we can oug ine some recommended policy changes. The recommendations are organ'ized around statenents of end purposes, as described below. I. llqp,s should be taken to .increase the il itv of beinq detected for i.mpaired driving. In addltion to the obvious option of increasing the ,? 46 number of enforcement personnel, three additional measures deserve consideration and/or increased implementation. A. Use of prearrest breath screening devices when evidence of probable impairment exists in investigating traffic violat'ions and accidents. It has long been known that the routine interaction between officer and driveris not a reliable method of identifyinq those drivers who should be required to take a field sobriety test (fST). Heavy drinkers can appear very normal and alcohol odor can be concealed or virtuall.y absent in the presence of substantial BAC levels. As a resuit, the present system of administering chemical tests only to those who take and fai'l an FST results in a substantial false negative rate (not detectjng persons who are truly lmpaired). B. use of sobriety checkpoints. The california supreme court has recently upheld the constitutionaljty of the CHP's system of establishing roadblocks or checkpoints to test random samples of drivers for impairment. Use and expanslon of this system should be encouraged. C. All iocal and state traffic enforcement personnel should util'ize the thre.e-test FST configuration (gaze nystagmus, walk and turn, and one-1eg stand) found to have maximum drscriminating power (sensitivity and specificity) for detecting alcoho'l impairment. Any FSI should include these three teSts (0'lson, 1986). II. Steps should be taken to increase the probabllit.y of beinq convjcted of the original DUI charge. The foilowing strategies should be impl emented . A, Place addit'ional constraints on the prosecutor,s and court's authority to plea-bargain DUI charges to a lesser charge. B. increase prosecution for driving with a DUI-suspended 1 icense; util ize the "constructive proof" concept as evidence of recelpt of l'icense suspension when signed proof is unavailable. This concept, which is cur rently reflected in CVC '14601, a11ows proof of serv'ice to be inferyed from cert'ification that the suspension order was ma'iled to the driver's address of record. C. Decrease subjective judicial discretion and the number of sanction options available to the courtsi eliminate judiciai authority to impose or waive I'icense control sanctions; license control sanctions should be mandated by statute. D. Require presentence lnvestigations and develop sanction options based on the PSI standards developed by 0TS pursuant to SB 2206- Watson (.1986). High BACs (0.?011 and above) and a history of accjdent involvement and rnoving violations should be the major factors in requiring enhanced sanctions and referral to education and treatment programs. IiI. Stepl should b_e_taken to increase thq impact of license suspension as a DUI deterrent. A. A mandatory administrative per se license suspens'ion law should be enacted to assure the pronpt suspens'ion of alI chenical-test refuser^s and aIl offenders with BACs of 0..l0% or npre. B. If the above law is not enacted, then the alternative should be to adopt 'legislation imposing mandatory license suspension upon conviction for an.y DUI offense. C. Enrollnre-nt in DUi educational or rehabilitation programs should not be used as an alternative to prescribed license contro'l actions. Instead, postconviction treatment programs should be used as an additional countermeasure for offenders who qualify under approved PSI standards. As an incentive to promote treatrnent, consjderation should be given to reduc'ing the length of the license suspens'ion upon entry into, and completion of, a certified alcohol treatment program. In the same way, other pronising countermeasures, such as ignition interlock devices, should be used only as additlonal, not 5? 48 alternative, actions, until their effectiveness, if dn-fr can be establ'ished. A demonstration-project (AB 3939, Farr, 1986) is currently in progress to provide this evaluat'ion for ignition interlock drivers. D. F'irst offenders with h igh BAC levels (0.20i[ and above) should be subject to the same l'icense control sanctions and rehabil'itation re,quiremehts as second offenders. Legr'siation should be enacted to accomplish this. IV. steps should be taken to improve the comrunicatjon and coordination linkaqes between the police, courtS, treafinent providers and DMV. Legislation should be enacted to accomplish the fo'llowihg: A. A system of "positive reporting" of program compleiion should be established 'in place of the current negat'ive reporting system (i.e., reporting only noncompliance and inferring compietion from the absence of a negative report). B. A statewide telecommunlcation system should be established a"l1ow1ng electronic inputting of court abstracts to DMV's driver record data base and direct access to an offender's Dlrlv driver record. C. The current law, a1 lowing second offenders enrol led in SB 3B programs to have their Jicense restriction removed after 6 months and a'l'lowing program dropouts to be readqjtted up to two t.imes5 should be abolished. The modification and readmitting authority unnecessarily compl icates the communication/controi process and cannot be justified in view of the present empirical evidence. D. Courts should be required to serve suspension and revocat'ion orders upon conviction in cases where the suspension is mandated by statute. In addition, offenders who circumvent license suspension by enrolling in an SB 38 treatment program should be required to 49 file and maintain proof of insurance. Legislation (AB 3ZB, Frazee) has been introduced'in the lg87 legislative session to imp'lement these changes. tr Al I forms of preconv i ct i on d ivers 'ion juvenile offenses, should be prohibited. Institutions statutes (Section .|654), placed on informal probation and avoid to DMV. of DUI offenses, includlng Under exist'ing [,le1fare and juvenile offenders can be having the offense reported F. The use of vehicle impounding should be greatly expanded. under current law (CVC 23.I95), courts have discretion to impound vehicles registered to convicted DUI offenders under very 1 imiting circumstances. rhe authority is rarely used and the impounding is for only a brief period (30-90 days). Consideration should be given to enacting legislation requ'iring the DMV to revoke the reg'istration of any thnee-time DUi offender who is convi'cted of a traffic violation orinvolved in a reportable accident wh jle under revocation for a prior DUI offense. Sim'i1ar1y, any drivers convicted of drunk driving while under suspension should have their vehicle registration revoked. co-registnants would be required to register the vehicle under the stipulation that use by the revoked party would result in impounding of the veh'ic'le. V. Steps should be taken to devel and imolement a mana nt information system for monjtorinq system ormance and orovidi riodic status rePorts to the various organ'izations hav'ing responsibility for traffic safety and traffic lar{ enforcement. Two 0TS grants currently in progress at DMV are des'igned to: A. Establish process and quality objectives and a system for tracking DUI 'incidents frorn po'int of arrest to DMV act'ion. Process measures would be tabulated by county and court for inclusion in an annual "state of the DUI control system', report. vl 50 B. Establish a systern forr measuring the impact of DUI sanctions on recidivism rates and providing counties with periodic state and local recidivism norms. presents an oVenriet{ of the key elements and rationale for an system, Based on the evidence presented in the previous chapters, no question that the proposed model rvould resu'lt ln a substant.ial in 0UI rates and fiJl-related traf,fic accldents. Table 2 improved there ls reductlon li> ("> 5L . >0 6n-4+n+>o. c-E! o+ x ocufooo o! )L6N^iEn ch oo c!€ r N O-+ r !n - 0I - ON + ots.-5l.l . !.. -orOO>6Et!.Ll}c o E> o +O 0l Ov c L fo o ooscNt-tNO10+oI L - O >+NOCL+3N s OE u -+O -(, O L ooL++-o+OSUE-Ei^qo-o+ o o oc o 5 cA-OOO-<; 6C; d bE :: € g& -c>otf{-L{--.cs +6e oE L! AB€ +89OP tE+ c q O O E: io.-> t'- O ? c - f c f : ol r o a Le >Oo +o =! 'E = 6E !, c o o iD - - o c .F o*q> Lo oL oL6o b+oE.oaDUo9OOo;fxbt gi: *E fs H"E;3 ;!Eb? i;E t: EE. E:bE Hh:€' s38 BE 8,9 9*eE gE"?Ei Ip8 != "3b -8;8 -€*_ o o oc o o = cc o (, o E o+:frqI p:s tI *e' to,i =b'$Et 160 s? etb ETEf EI.:!i8 +ce sE L=3 85€s 96533S; &S= 5E *Bs &;Ep Bti: F(!17136G tLo900cs-O OOLUC-c.O-+ oo > >.o O I O Lh!, o >c L o LL -- E O Ooc:6!OoO$$L o I u+g o . o oO U L> O: $c-o E -o- ht 89o ' 6B f;t hE \ E bs 'g E*grEo+c-! E - Ja+ L O I o9 S oq 5U OXOOOO-GsU F JO O_ JO -' L oE6 EO E€.0L - o o! o our+r+oo o 30 0 6tFoa-L+ooLoO U 65 A+ c 06 at\[ 3 h- [= - .F aLb E 8E 3e;.-JC t:-Oo(r+OU + L C h s 6-f-cO++> O -> o 6UE € ;Ig S3FQ@U!-=co C o +oOLUI -!!o)UrO!LU @lF - O E ! ; LFOOO+&@ - O! + d+ @eoD+.oo'6O-oOLOs!)$oLUOO O+ L L @- {-ELOO50>OOF OLc O LO OOZ E+- 6 ro =Fo Lr FNN9;aN outd (o0 <0auF.L =51 $0loocL>Z L -- L< +. CoOI rE EE#. ..8 .9*, F UtO O O O c z @lb L E -!!! =lE o o+ = ++oncE6Ld96r-!O*I E AO - ! E >- do* c O- G 5o u+ 5 o u!oqcc o i o--sO h d L+ Os + L c- GI . f o+ LNTEOOLFl-OON i U L dSN ' O- o OOLd H C5s9gq I -+ O:1 L Ort+@ o c >cre<64+0 oo60+f88 id:! - i - E *f,tif p -"6 t E " f ;Eg- L ! g-. c a c 6 6 f Ef s.o ;hc- . C + off oE;Iig ;i flFte 9e{ E"e* iE;E $i* iil iii; iEi iiri ii;; :sf :fl E;ic ii: e$eie gfii FfE 3:; irje siS EEi;c S;:; :.i*;,i,; ! e lf i p- + oof S* 8b = (! I cc toF{. i5 ;i EI:5s Et;i :g!E{ $E fs* pF$es isr} s..: :sE i;i iiF i;;EE g;$; t;gi;i xit ;i! i:sii, :sfc* rii !E= ;i! Elg iitr=i irirE isi!iE FsE i[; i!$i;E !ss]; ;f ; -8.; s t E E :9'r. o o L ii r EsiE-$ iii; E F gg ,r* iBEecl ;it I ; :t eitgii ;Es+ ItF i il ii ieEriarigi ai: f $ p: t:tg;Hsfax rei !* E; 3g E€teitt sig; sr$; lF $i p€ ;$gi-;Ei c b9c+oooc L! OLt8 -o 52 q"i E ccE . E8 " -9oP Ft O Lc - <+oEE -h - O O @ O+ Oo+oiLLn-; ar!>ceoOo6'i-s@c-Orlsroed6T ." 8I"fl.i :8EB .N T N U E + O O U CFIN 6 L O c C - L U E tHla d-' e1".Ilr; E:;$GIN .h >O 6 o + - 6 >+ -?lI F f .OclU- -U !ql@ N - O ; 6 + E c d\lF &6 L n O tN i r 6 aul oh ocN+>o o€:b El? En ieEsEef 5€E3. -l- o E o - - u c o > &tl -. Ed --;'.'htEg io:"9"'g? ;i teHrHia 3e;lFaF OF Osn d- E . = b r.5Gn on G\Nto;> F;! o a " -1,O cr o> o4o -! c > cC-tOOO O C O- o 6 Oab - e - i': E oe- oEc -+ c iaI q c* O 6 o .iH E=+ iea E #"r6s [!O d - o < o O a i bl a: 6! .> o a L ! 6 o L L d, d 6+ j; cE - co o c o o O o O't . 6 U 6.t" PEE f 9B !'fg=Lgt o;alie :!-B I;; tei=el!E t:e -lo- o$a uc uo .5o * .P&t-t- L - o r e o o i t . u 6 E c b 6 = ;'3l€$. !=i E:t EP8€ssIi ir;ol 9: t , Q o S = E = d 6 o ..: ii E o L:+E Erp eEgi 8tEt58qf, 9.:€5"r s8. Efat _!E$iE$€E irE+ O O^+5 +-+. +ELE 6+++O j-4, =rao+ c O > a c eo+ o b nb a6; iEXe EE!-E !rybo o-a.6;" n- E5=uo: ros+ uoEE 3+A;Abb'8 !Sf .a FNN$N o -OO>oco5 c oooqcoO- - -+o o -+ dtt+o. eL Oa.OLOO-d ul- D o + 6 L6lloaa alo+- oL JL 5l e';; ,.P *e? O! L O c . O c .Pcq COO -OtrO - L U; L> q -oo -6o!+caeEect + o- 5 6 cOO>+do=dd O L L - JeJ r! > { o - d o ficocn3 bl : s zlo o El - " ula c o E-l 3 e tUlo-clt- 8l rE,clr o[l G o :"' o- L+ o -luqlo 813dluotJ j EF Joc 2€8 o C' -6+c6OU vo -E 5- oz F I FzU-g U 53 {-o.sooo+c.u1 0n O-6 U O+ -o5p$L-3 r88 El i'R tshsOllsco(Ll n r O-cLtnts+Al r - 8E*\lc6;OcUlAO96JlOsoE;LiEEL E L4 = ! ,+ 6€8o e3fl69 *',treiE sef6.E eE;t ^Hl-ud tsEi: ;l5l6l :;+5 gEhf E +=t8Fl tE!3 E!o+- 53E,E ;l f *t: Ei$n; B::E- o u L OoO +6EfsEE "eh*= "g;E;StE 8eeo. &=ooi $$gE EBgEr EIeE :N!i & I 9 3E , E- o ' L;b$ EE s:5 €t .:lOaoO+o>it gtt {-;.r cioo _od, €f ; 88. = E qs . C o E Ht E; Err$ ;t; ;i*el Ug E'8. ="8 f .S"l; "8h! e;I eEt!!s rErt !,9fl rH:,- !; .U!F; tE;e s=r !fl; .{_ous g.i E 0+- E O r. I E 6-- L gl ge ill*; El EE tlIEe Sl tE r35.iI. il ei oSooEE Hl E* fiig=Ei'€a €8hr3g EFo 6 JotFz B =6 6U o E : b an Fz trjE 5 td ! o,c Ic oo N l! J(o H t{-o al i.l+ql EdullOEE 81 8ETEl q$ oLloc>'E-o 54 American Bar driving laws BIBL IOGRAPHY Association, Criminal and enforcement - Just'ice Sect ion. An assessment of ( .1986). Drunk s h'i ngton , Arstei n-Kerslake, warning letter for ornla ru r UA: Arstein-Kersl ake, of California DUi effect iveness An evaluation of the ct of offenders: VoIume of An eva I uat sure r es. G. tl. f irst ('leB6). time DUI vinq c J. a. q G. kl., & Peck, R. C. (l9BS). A typological analysis. n., q rELn r. r,. ty6cr. l o qlca I a v qffenders and DUI recidivism cm eport No.ruur. 5acramentoo cA: ca.lifornla Departmenf of-fiotoF-EhTcles. Public Safety Department.in None for the road. Los 6. Cleary, ,J., & Rodgers, ( 1986). 'laws, Part is of the effects of recent in Minnesota's : Kesea Departmen nnesota House Epperson, Automobile Club of Southern Cal ifornia, ( 19BZ). ^C-hart- (*OUI Tree of Knowledge,,)Angeles, CA: Author. B1och, S. A., & Aisenbergn R. A. figg4). The effects of touqh DUI Laws: california's -f_'irst_ twenty rpnths. Journal of Traffii SireivEducation, 31(?1, ll-lZ, ZS. A. Dl{I 7. cgmpton, R- P., & Preusser, D. F. (]986). A preliminary analysis ofthe effect of hliscons'in's mandatory short-term licenie susoens.ion penq]lV for .DllI. Regqargh Ng!g:". l^lashington DC: National FltghwayTraff ic Safety Admi n-i$Fdffi- the Leqi [J. V., Harano, R. M., &'lature of the State of Peck, R. C. (.1975). Final report to Ca I ifornia in accord wTtfi-ffi1Tif16-h'n t5enate Uoncurrent E Department of Motor Keso tut]on Veh ic les. ( 1971). Fi nal ylvanla, lnc. .l0. .l1. Finkelstein, R., & McGuire, J" p. ( l97l ). Antraff ic enforcement/driver control Final Reoorti vanla, Inc. Flnkelstein, R., & McGuire, J. P.traffic enforcement/driver iontrol. []1[g]lteirp R., &.McGuire, J. P. (197.l). An optimum system fortraff.lcenforcement/drivercontrol,FinaiReoort[5ffi Governor's Task Force on Alcohol, Drugs and rraffic safety. (lg8l). . Saciamento, CA: opt'imum system for Volume l. optimum system for Volume iI. Mountain 12. lrb 5s .I3. Hagen, R. E., and revocation McConnell, E. J., & Willjams, R. L. il980). Suspension ,effects on the DUI offender (Report No. 7s). ]fl-llffio.r66v-("to lJt I . sacramentffiDepartment of l4otor veh.icles. lO. Hagen, R. (.re78). drlvers An serles ana tys'is. 23. 20. ?1. 22. I I ich, D. M. Los Anqeles coun y Mun'ic pa Johns. T. R.. & driving license E., hlii'liams, R. 1., evaluation of alcohol McConnel l, E. ,J. , abuse treatment as effect'iveness of recent cha countermeasures : c e Attorney General and of and Research- & an af, 10n ids. .l5. Hagen, R. conv'icted ile77). muit iple Helander, C. J. assessment strat eva Hilton, M. E. Cal ifoinia law as E. ot .l6. 17. 18. 19. s 'in tirne Penalties and the drink/dr.iver: A study of one str of Hqrwitz, s.r Lasor+rskl, .l,I- s., & crine, T. R. oggr). Arcohor educationand recidivism rates: The cognitive- connecti;n.-' 'lineii'can'"Asijiiition(pp.i6i-iilr,ffi Huston, R. E. ('1986). Teen driSacramento,CA:californiffi.|T..,,:[1.T3;'l(2ndEd.)]. 51"?I;o*'Ef.,r 1 "t?i[,;,lh, Veh icles. (.1986). _senior driver facts [Report No.CA: C@t- oi Motor 24. (1e83). Pascarella, E. A. amendment to the An assessment of the I imited( reTt ). North v't nq. apet H'lll, NC: atety Research Center. 8., et a1. ('197.|). driver control s ,Joscelyn, K. the drinkin irstltute-for 25. VCTS l"? 56 27. 26. 28. (rlo(e., D., & Burke, P. J. (.1980). Log-linear models.. Beverly Hi1ls, CA &. London, Eng'land: Sage publicati6fr,t- Landrum, J., [,{'iles, S., Neff, R., pr.itchard, T., Roebuck, J., l^le1]s-Parker, ^ E. , ,& l^tindham, G. (l9BZ). Mississippi OUf proUati6n Io r,row-ug plg+ecl (Report No. D0T-HS-806274). Highway Traff ic Safety Administration. lllg!ffq{]qg, !: , &. Brown, D. B . , _( 1985a ) . rmpact of drunk dr ivi nslegls lation in the state of Alabama. Transportation Research Record-1047. l.lashingtor_, DC: Transportation ffiffi-6aren-m'uncit. p{. Zi-lz. Ir'laghsood'loo, S., & Brown, D. B. ( lggsb). Impact of drunk drlvinolegislat'ion in the State of Alabama. Alab Mann, R_. E.r Leighr. G.,-_v'ing-i1is, E. R., & DeGenova, K. ilgg3). Acrit'ica'l rev'iew of the effectiveness of drinking-drivihg retrabil:talionprogrammes. , .l5, 44.l_46.l. National Commission Against Drunk Driving. (t9g6). proqress Report on Reconrnendations _lropo.sed by the Presidential Coirmffi National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. fi9g6). Reducino [ighw?y. crashes through administrative license revoiation, Waffi National Transporta_tion Safety Board. ( ]9g4). Def iciencies in enforcement, iudicill r__ild treatment programs related to-FmeeftTfe-Radf Nichols, J. L., Weinstein,,_l:^8., Ell.ingstad, V. S., Struckman-iohnson, P.:- L-r, $ Reis, R. E. (.1980). The -effectivenesi of eauCitlori ano iTraffic Safety, Stockholm, Sweden. Nichols, J. L., hleinste'in, E. 8., Er ringstad, v. s., & struckman- !ghn:g[r.h.f.. .fi978). The specific deterient ettect ot ninp-eouiationano renaoil rtation programs. Journal of safet.v Research., -]g, 171-1g7. 0ffice of Traffic Safety. (]983). -l-&efiu report to the Leqislature:Catifornia's tirst 0U: o 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37 - 9.lry1, P. !. - ( .1986). Identifying alcohol-impaired drivers. The 1IMIRIHesearch Rev.iew, l6 (S), 4nq Arbor, MI: Un.iversity of -f-ffi@sd6Tch' ihitifute. -- br 38. i7 Peck, R. C., Sadler, D. 0., & perrine, M. l,J. effectiveness of alcohol rehabi'litation andfor drunk driving offenders: A review of Druqs and Drivinq, l, l5-39. 39. Peck,. R.- C-._ - (-'1984). A statlstical evaluation of the traff ic safetyimpqct of AB 54l. UnpuU 40. Peck, R. C. (.l983). The trqfllg_:g_tqU impact of Catifornia,s new law (AB S+drunk driv'i ffi[bFTEffic]es. ornla Department ( 1985). The comparative'licens'ing control act'ions the literature. Alcohol, 41. 42. Peck, 8. C: (l98l). [Review of nAn appraisal of San Diego County SB 38participant DUI recidivism and ti'affic accident -involveilent. "lAbstracts and Revlews in.Alcohol 4 Drivinq, ? (10), 3-5. Perrine, ry. ry. ('1984). Analysis _qf pul processing from amest throuqhpost-conviction counterm A i-veh'icles. 43" Popkin, C. L. , Li, L. K., "Lacey, J. Stewart, R. .1., & l^la11er, p. F.(1983). An initial evaluation ofeducationffi North Carolina alcohol and u.o ii''ii' H idhwlv nnrca I Report,. Safety Research 44. Presidential Cqnmission on Drunk Driving. ( .1983). presidential con{n'issi'on final report on drunk dri}ring. ilashlngton, DC: p,uinff 45. Reis, 46. Reis, R. E. (1982a). The traffie safety effectiveness of educationfirst offens: Nationat Highway TraffiE Safety Administration. ( l9g2b). Ihe tr qf qducationa.l lru ltip'lefor . r r-r. Administrat ion. ghway Traffic Safety 47. Ross,'H. L. ( .1982) . Deterri sosial con!-rol. Lexingffi, 48, Ross, H. L. (1976). The neutralization of severe penalt.ies:traffic law studies. Law and Societ.y_Review, .l0, 403-413. evaluation efficiency and a consent proqram: Volume a 49. Sadler, D. D. (1986). Antraffic safety impact of thE R. E. ams for the drinki 50. Sadler, D. 0., & perrine, M. 1.',. ilgg4). The lonq-tenn traffic safetv impact of a pi'lot alcohol abuse treatrrcnt a 58 5.l. Sa'lzberg , revocation P. M., Houser, R., & Klingberg, C. L. for fie8r ) . hab i tua I License TraTffiand alcoholism treatment proqrams Salzberg, P. M., & wh'ile intoxicated: rTeEnsm'g: 53. Tashiman H. N., & detement effects sn'r ng n P. ne83). L I sanctions for drivi the .1980 Wash aw on orun e EffiiTg'. 52. Paulrude, S. Effect of sur oftenders: ffiIifr.EFfitr'A Peck, R. C. (]986). An e_vq@ of alternative sanctions for first and va tuatl0n of Motor 54. Votey, H. 1., Jr., & Shapiro, P. (1983). Highway accidents in Sweden: t'lode11ing the process of drunken driving behaviour and control. Accident Analysis and Preventim, $, 523-533. 'lo EXHIBIT L 54 HI I 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 t2 13 t4 15 T6 l7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, S. Sheryl Leung, do hereby swear that: l. I am over the age of 18 and a resident of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein and if called as a witness, could testifii competently thereto. 2. I am employed as a Deputy District Attorney for Santa clara county. 3. On July l+2}2l,Real Party's motion for court diversion came on for hearing in Department 51. Based on my review of the file for this docket as it is kept in the ordinary course of business, the parties submitted on their fited briefing and Respondent Court read its opinion into the record. 4. On or about August 5,2021, our office submiued a request for the reporter's transcript of the proceedings at the July f$ 2021hearing, however, our office has not received it yet. 5. Attached is a true and correct copy of a 1987 DMV Evaluation of the Catifornia Drunk Driving Countermeasure System from the United States Department of Justice website at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffilesl/Digitization/lI l960NCJRS.pdf I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed August 13,2021 in Santa Clara County Leung Declaration
